The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of the case.

As stated in the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant was indicted for the violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree (Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, May 13, 1975, hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the protection of national security and public order, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for three years and suspension of qualification for the Defendant on March 2, 1979.

The Defendant and the prosecutor appealed against the above judgment as the Gwangju High Court 79No136, and the above court reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing on July 4, 1979, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and suspension of qualification for one year and six months (hereinafter “the judgment subject to the judgment subject to the judgment”), and the judgment subject to the judgment became final and conclusive, by

Since Emergency Measure No. 9 is unconstitutional, the Defendant asserted that there exists a ground for retrial in the judgment subject to retrial, and that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act, and the decision to commence a retrial was rendered based on the determination that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act as of April 2, 2014. The

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In addition, the defendant does not have any act like the facts charged, and the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor appealed for the interest of the defendant.

Judgment

Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor, we examine ex officio whether the Emergency Measure No.9 is unconstitutional.

In a case where a new trial has commenced, the statutes applicable to criminal facts are the laws at the time of the judgment.

Therefore, the court has changed the law at the time of the decision for review.