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 final records of the judgment subject to review.

A. On February 13, 1976, the Seoul District Court Incheon Branch found the Defendant guilty of violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) on the part of the Defendant and the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”), and sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for the Defendant (the lower judgment). B. The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed against the lower judgment on July 6, 1976. The lower judgment was reversed, and the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment, suspension of execution, and suspension of qualification for the purpose of protecting the national security and public order (the judgment subject to a retrial).

On October 12, 1976, the Defendant appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 76Do2803 Decided October 12, 1976). Accordingly, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

(d)

On June 8, 2016, the Defendant filed the instant petition for retrial. On February 6, 2017, this court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the grounds that there was a ground that there was a ground for reexamination under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial.

After that, there was no legitimate filing of a complaint within the appeal period, the decision of the retrial was finalized as it is.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In spite of having to be acquitted of the facts charged in the instant case indicted by applying Article 9 of an invalid emergency measure against unconstitutionality, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that found the Defendant guilty.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three years of imprisonment and three years of suspension of qualification) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

3. The statutes applicable to criminal facts in a case where a new trial for judgment has commenced are the statutes at the time of a new trial.

Therefore, the court shall apply the law at the time of judgment on criminal facts when the law was changed.