The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

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

A. As indicated in the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant was indicted by the Seoul District Court, Seoul District Criminal District Court, Incheon District Criminal District Court, and the above court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged on November 28, 1975 and sentenced the Defendant to 8 years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications by applying Articles 7 and 1(a) of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the Protection of National Security and Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”).

B. On April 20, 1976, the Defendant and the prosecutor appealeded as Seoul High Court 75No1645, and the above court accepted the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing and reversed the judgment of the court below, and again convicted the Defendant of the above charges and sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification by applying the Emergency Measure Nos. 9(7) and (1)(a).

(hereinafter referred to as the "case subject to review") c.

The judgment subject to a retrial was final and conclusive as it was not a final appeal.

On November 2, 2017, a prosecutor filed a request for retrial on November 2, 2017. On March 14, 2018, this court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the grounds that there are grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial. The decision to commence the retrial became final and conclusive as

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

There is no fact that the defendant speaks as stated in the summary of the attached facts charged.

The punishment sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing (eight years of imprisonment, suspension of qualifications, eight years of suspension) is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below by the public prosecutor is too uneasible and unfair.

It is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor.

Before the amendment by the Constitution No. 9 of October 27, 1980, as to whether Emergency Measure No. 9 was unconstitutional, it was wholly amended by the Constitution.

I. The Constitution of the Republic of Korea is hereinafter referred to as the "Boman Constitution").

Emergency Measure 9 issued pursuant to Article 53 for purposes without fulfilling the trigger requirements.