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 violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 of May 13, 1975 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”), and the said court convicted the Defendant of all the facts charged against the Defendant on August 18, 197, and sentenced the Defendant for three years and three years of imprisonment.

The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed against the above judgment by this Court 77No362, and the above court reversed the judgment of the court on the grounds of unfair sentencing on November 10, 1977, 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 referred to as “the judgment on review”), and the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive upon the Defendant’s waiver of a final appeal.

On the other hand, 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 in the judgment subject to retrial. On March 10, 2014, the court rendered a decision to commence retrial based on the determination that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act since Emergency Measure No. 9 was invalid from the beginning.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

In addition to the misunderstanding of the facts, the lower court’s punishment (three years of imprisonment and three years of suspension of qualifications) 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.