The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of the decision for review and the decision for commencing a retrial.

A. On December 2, 1975, the Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court recognized the facts charged as stated in the separate sheet against the Defendant on December 2, 1975, and sentenced seven years of imprisonment and seven years of suspension of qualification by applying Articles 7 and 1(a) of the Presidential Emergency Decree for National Security and Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) issued pursuant to Article 53 of the former Constitution of the Republic of Korea (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980; hereinafter “New Constitution”).

(Supreme Court 75Gohap77). (b)

On March 4, 1976, the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal respectively. The Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the sentence of the court below was too heavy, and sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment and one year and six months of suspension of qualification against the defendant (Seoul High Court Decision 75No1701, the judgment subject to a retrial), and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive around

C. On November 6, 2017, a prosecutor filed a request for retrial on the grounds that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial on June 26, 2018, and the said decision became final and conclusive.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant did not commit the crime as stated in the facts charged of this case, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

A. The Supreme Court held that Emergency Decree No. 9 is unconstitutional, since Emergency Decree No. 9, which was issued based on Article 53 of the U.S. Constitution, violated the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people beyond the limits for the purpose of its issuance without satisfying the requirements for its issuance.