The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall announce the judgment of innocence against the defendant.

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

A. On November 2, 1978, the defendant and the claimant for retrial (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9 at the Seoul District Criminal Court and two years of suspension of qualifications.

(No. 78 Gohap462). (b)

On February 1, 1979, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below on February 1, 1979 and sentenced ten months of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications to the defendant, and the above Seoul High Court's judgment (hereinafter "the judgment on review") became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On January 20, 2012, the Defendant filed a request for a retrial on the judgment subject to a retrial with the Seoul High Court Decision 2012No7, the Seoul High Court rendered on May 13, 2013, that the facts charged for the judgment subject to a retrial were governed by the penal provisions, and as long as the Emergency Measure No.9 was determined to be null and void from the beginning in the Supreme Court en banc Order 201Hu689 Decided January 13, 201, it constitutes “when there is a new evidence to acknowledge innocence of the person who was declared guilty,” and the decision to commence a retrial was rendered based on the determination that there was a ground for retrial as prescribed in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the said decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive as is,

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

Since the domestic situation at the time of 1979 cannot be seen as a state of urgency at any point, the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 applied by the defendant at the original trial is invalid and thus, the defendant's participation in the demonstration is legitimate. The defendant did not commit a crime identical to the facts charged in this case, but the judgment of the court below convicts the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is two years and more.