1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. On March 21, 1978, the Plaintiff was arrested for a violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree (amended by the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, May 13, 1975; hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the national security and the protection of public order, and was investigated without a warrant, after being transferred to the Central Information Division Seoul Branch, Mapo Police Station, etc., and was isolated from the outside.

On April 11, 1978, the Plaintiff was detained for about 20 days without a warrant of detention as above, and was prosecuted in the Seoul Criminal District Court (No. 78 Gohap234) with the facts charged as shown in the attached Form.

On June 13, 1978, the Seoul Criminal Court sentenced the plaintiff to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and suspension of qualification for one year.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Prosecutor appealed to Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 78No989). On November 24, 1978, the Seoul High Court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion of mistake of facts, rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and sentenced the Plaintiff to a suspended sentence of two years and a suspension of qualification for one year (hereinafter “instant decision subject to a retrial”). The judgment became final and conclusive as the lapse of the period of appeal on December 2, 1978.

In addition, the plaintiff was released on November 24, 1978.

On October 13, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a petition for review of the instant judgment subject to a retrial with the Seoul High Court (201JNo132).

Therefore, the Seoul High Court rendered a decision of retrial on July 30, 2013 on the ground that the Emergency Measure No. 99 was null and void from the beginning, and the grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act exist. On September 24, 2013, the facts charged charged by applying Emergency Measure No. 9, which is unconstitutional and invalid on September 24, 2013, rendered a judgment of innocence against the Plaintiff on the ground that the facts charged by the public prosecution constituted “when the defendant's case falls under “when the defendant's case is not committed” under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The judgment of