The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. According to the records of the instant case, the following facts are recognized.

A. The Defendants were indicted on the facts charged as shown in the Attachment, and the Seoul District Criminal Court found all of the charges guilty on October 15, 197, and sentenced Defendant A to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, suspension of qualifications for Defendant B and two years, suspension of qualifications for Defendant B, suspension of qualifications for two years, and suspension of qualifications for one year and one year, suspension of qualifications for Defendant Net C, respectively, by applying a presidential emergency measure for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “emergency measure No. 9”).

B. As the Defendants and prosecutors appealed, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the Defendants on January 23, 1978, and sentenced Defendant A to one year and suspension of qualifications, one year and six months of imprisonment, one year and six months of suspension of qualifications, one year and one year and six months of suspension of qualifications, and one year and one year and six months of suspension of qualifications, and two years of suspension of execution and one year of suspension of qualifications to Defendant G, and Defendant A and B filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by the above Defendants on April 11, 1978, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

C. After the death of Defendant G’s deceased, Defendant D, and Defendant A, and B filed a petition for a retrial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial with this Court 2012 No. 17, Feb. 3, 2012. On September 12, 2013, the instant judgment subject to a retrial was obviously unconstitutional, and the Emergency Measure No. 9 applied to the instant case was rendered on September 12, 2013. Accordingly, the judgment subject to a retrial determined that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the said judgment to commence a retrial became final and conclusive as is, since there was no legitimate

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the facts charged against the Defendants do not fall under subparagraphs 9, 7, 2, and 1 of the Emergency Measures Act, the lower court determined that the Defendants do not fall under either of subparagraphs 9, 7, 2, and 1.