beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. Summary of the facts charged in this case
A. From October 18, 197 to October 29, 1977, the Defendant, along with C, D, and E, as students in the fourth-year agricultural economics and the fourth-year agricultural economics of B University, proposed the abolition of the former Constitution of the Republic of Korea (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980; hereinafter “new Constitution”), and the Presidential Emergency Decree for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”), as well as the distribution of printed materials containing the contents such as the cancellation, etc. of the presidential emergency measures for the protection of national security and public order, and for the purpose of agricultural demonstration by occupying the above university building.
B. On October 30, 197, around 23:00, the Defendant produced 500 copies of “the Declaration of Spence against the Democratic Republic of Korea”, which is a expressive material that publicly slanders subparagraph 9 of the Emergency Decree, by using fraud, etc. from the Hnin House 2 located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, to 04:30 the following day.
C. After that, the Defendant, along with C, D, I, J, and E, extracted the method of a specific agricultural demonstration from November 2, 197 to November 10, 197, and then distributed the above declaration at the student restaurant of B, D, and D distributed the above declaration at the student restaurant of B, and the Defendant, E distributed the above declaration at the fourth floor of the library, and entered the library door with C, I, and 80 students as well as C, I, and 17:40 students on the same day, as C, after the Defendant 5th square of the above university.
2. Progress of this case
A. On January 28, 1978, the Seoul District Court’s Yeongdeungpo Branch Branch of the Seoul District Court recognized the Defendant as guilty of all the charges by applying the Emergency Measure Nos. 9(7), (1)(b), (c), (d) and (2), and suspended the Defendant’s imprisonment for three years and suspension of qualification.