The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall disclose the summary of the judgment of innocence.

1. On December 29, 1978, the Seoul Criminal Court found the Defendant guilty of violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the national security and the protection of public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) and sentenced the Defendant and the prosecutor to three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification (78 high 767). The Seoul Criminal Court reversed the judgment of the lower court on April 19, 1979, and sentenced the Defendant to one year and six months of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for one year and six months (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). The judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive at that time.

On November 23, 2017, a prosecutor filed a request for a retrial on November 23, 2017, and this court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on December 5, 2017 on the ground that there was a ground that there was a ground for review under Article 420, subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the

The decision to commence a new trial was finalized because there is no legitimate appeal within the appeal period.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The horses by the misunderstanding of the legal principles are personal privacy, and do not constitute an element of the Emergency Decree No. 9, because it is not likely that direct and serious threat to national security or public order would directly be posed.

2) At the time of committing a crime with mental and physical weakness, he was in a state of mental and physical weakness.

3) Unreasonable sentence of the lower court (three years of imprisonment and three years of suspension of qualifications) is too unreasonable.

B. The court below’s sentencing (unfair sentencing) is too unfortunate and unfair.

3. In a case where an ex officio review of judgment has commenced, the statutes applicable to criminal facts are the statutes at the time of new judgment.

In the event that the law was amended at the time of the judgment subject to new trial, the court shall apply the law to the crime at the time of the judgment for new trial, and if the law was repealed, the court shall render a judgment of acquittal for the crime by applying Article 326, subparagraph

However, even if the penal law was repealed at the time of a new judgment, the abolition is in violation of the Constitution and has no effect.