1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant against the plaintiffs shall be revoked, and the revocation part shall be applicable.

1. Recognized facts;

A. On February 6, 1979, the Plaintiff A was convicted of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree (Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, May 13, 1975; Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) on the charge of the violation of national security and public order around February 27, 1979, while attending the second year of the political diplomatic department of the Korea National University, and was prosecuted on February 27, 1979 as the facts charged (hereinafter “instant facts charged”).

(2) On May 17, 1979, on the basis of the Emergency Decree No. 9, Paragraph 7, and Paragraph 1(a) of 17, 1979, the above court found the defendant guilty of the above charges, and sentenced the defendant to three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification, and the prosecutor appealed, but the above judgment became final and conclusive after withdrawing the appeal on August 13, 1979.

(hereinafter “The Judgment on Review”). The plaintiff A was detained for 191 days from the date of the above detention, and was released on August 15, 1979 from the suspension of execution of punishment.

B. The Plaintiff A filed a petition for new trial with the District Court 2012 Inventory 1 regarding the judgment subject to new trial.

On December 12, 2014, the Chuncheon District Court rendered a judgment of not guilty by applying the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that the Emergency Measure No. 9, which is the applicable law, constitutes unconstitutionality since it was deemed that the Emergency Measure No. 9, which is the applicable law, constitutes unconstitutionality.

This ruling became final and conclusive on December 20, 2014.

(hereinafter “Re-judgment”) C.

The plaintiffs related plaintiff B is the leakage of plaintiff A, and plaintiff C is the remainder of plaintiff A.

The net L and the network M are the parents of the plaintiffs and the network N, and the network N was the type of the plaintiff A. The network N was the deceased on February 12, 1979, the network M was the deceased on January 3, 199, and the network L was the deceased on February 19, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), the result of the personal examination of plaintiff A, the result of the fact inquiry of the first instance court to the Korea University, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to this safety defense