The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall announce the judgment of innocence against the defendant.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

A. On February 6, 1978, the Defendant and the claimant for a retrial (hereinafter “Defendant”) were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years and six months and suspension of qualifications for a violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, such as the attached Form No. 77 of the Seoul District Criminal Court case No. 77Gohap882.

B. On June 29, 1978, the Seoul High Court case No. 78No364, on which the Defendant appealed, the lower judgment was reversed and sentenced to two years imprisonment with prison labor and suspension of qualifications for the Defendant, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

C. After that, on July 19, 2011, the Defendant filed a petition for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial with this Court No. 201No. 112. On April 19, 2013, inasmuch as it is evident that the crime of the judgment subject to a new trial was governed by the Emergency Decree No. 9, and in the Supreme Court en banc Order 2011Hu689 Decided that the Emergency Decree No. 9 was null and void from the beginning, it constitutes “when clear evidence to acknowledge innocence is newly discovered” and thus, the new trial order was decided upon holding that there was a ground for new trial as prescribed in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the said decision on new trial became final and conclusive as is, since there was no legitimate filing of an appeal within the appeal period.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the absence of illegality as a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules of Article 20 of the Criminal Act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 20 of the Criminal Act, thereby misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, and the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9 is valid by losing the urgency and provisionalness required by the Constitution.

Despite the fact that it cannot be said, the court below erred by applying the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9.