The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

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

A. On December 27, 1975, the Defendant was charged with the charge indicated in the attached Form 75 high 271,363 as the Seoul Criminal Court’s Yeongdeungpo Branch. On December 27, 1975, the said court found the Defendant guilty of the above charges and sentenced one year of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for the purpose of protecting the national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) by applying Articles 7 and 1(b) of the Presidential Emergency Measures for the protection of national security and public order.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed. On April 26, 1976, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below and sentenced the Defendant to two years of suspended execution and suspension of qualification for one year of imprisonment (Seoul High Court Decision 76No304, hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”) and became final and conclusive around that time.

(c)

On November 2, 2017, a prosecutor filed a request for a retrial on November 2, 2017, and the Seoul High Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on January 8, 2018 on the ground that there was a reason for re-examination under Article 420, subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to

The decision to commence the above review was finalized as it is, because there was no legitimate filing of appeal within the appeal period.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In the event that Defendant 1’s mistake or misunderstanding of the legal principles were present at a meeting of the prosecution C, which committed suicide in opposition to the old Constitution, the illegality is dismissed by exercising legitimate sovereignty.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualifications) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

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

A. The former Constitution of the Republic of Korea (wholly amended on October 27, 1980 by the Constitution No. 9 of the Republic of Korea prior to the amendment of the Emergency Decree No. 9 on October 27, 1980)

The Emergency Measure No. 9, which was issued on the basis of the Emergency Measure stipulated in Article 53 of the Act, (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), exceeded the bounds of the purpose without satisfying the requirements, and exceeds the freedom and rights of the people.