The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Case progress

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

(1) As stated in the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant was indicted for violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, and the Seoul Criminal Court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and three years suspension of qualification for the Defendant on August 19, 1977, by combining the above cases and finding the Defendant guilty on the charges of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9.

(2) The Defendant and the prosecutor appealed the above judgment as Seoul High Court 77No1488 on November 30, 197, and the above court rejected the Defendant’s violation of law, mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on November 30, 1977, but reversed the lower judgment’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and subsequently sentenced the Defendant to one year and six months of imprisonment and suspension of qualification

(3) The Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court regarding the instant judgment subject to a retrial, but on March 14, 1978, the final appeal was dismissed and became final and conclusive.

B. On May 3, 2013, the Defendant first filed the instant request for retrial. On August 22, 2013, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the part of the instant judgment subject to retrial (hereinafter “decision to commence a retrial”), and rendered a decision to commence a retrial as to the part of the instant judgment subject to retrial (hereinafter “decision to commence a retrial”), on the grounds 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. Accordingly, the instant decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive as is, on August 22, 2013, since there was no legitimate filing of appeal within the filing period of appeal.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) The instant facts charged in violation of the Act did not specify the facts charged so that the facts charged can be specified. Thus, the judgment of the court below is required to dismiss the public prosecution, and even if not, the judgment of the court below.