The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Case progress

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

(1) The Defendants were indicted under the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree in order to protect national security and public order, as stated in the summary of the charges charged, by the Seoul District Court Branch of Suwon Branch of the Seoul District Court. On November 6, 1978, the said court found the Defendants guilty of both the charges against the Defendants on November 6, 1978, sentenced Defendant A to two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications, two years of imprisonment, and one year of suspension of qualifications, and one year of qualification to Defendant B.

(2) The Defendants and public prosecutors appealed to the above judgment as Seoul High Court 78No1596, and the above court rejected the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of legal principles on March 7, 1979, but reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and subsequently sentenced Defendant A to one year of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualification, and one year of suspension of qualification to Defendant B, and one year of suspension of qualification.

(2) On March 15, 1979, Defendant A withdrawn the final appeal on March 23, 1979, and Defendant B, upon the lapse of the period for final appeal, became final and conclusive on March 15, 1979.

B. On June 8, 2011, the Defendants filed the instant request for retrial. On July 5, 2013, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial (hereinafter “decision to commence a retrial of this case”) on the part of the Defendants in the judgment subject to retrial on the ground that the Presidential Emergency Measure for National Security and the Protection of Public Order (Presidential Emergency Measure No.9, May 13, 1975) (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No.9”) was unconstitutional and invalid from the beginning, and that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and subsequently, the instant decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive as is, on the grounds that there was no legitimate filing of appeal within the appeal period.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendants’ act as stated in the facts charged in the instant case constitutes a crime.