The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. According to the records of the instant case, the following facts are recognized.

A. On September 30, 197, the Defendant was prosecuted as the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree, and the Seongbuk Branch of the Seoul District Court found all the charges guilty, and subsequently sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of two years, a long term of three years, and a suspension of qualification for each of three years by applying the Presidential Emergency Decree (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) aimed at protecting the national security and public order.

B. As the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed, the Seoul High Court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of three years and six months, a short of three years and suspension of qualifications for a defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the Judgment on Review”) on February 28, 1978 in the case of 77No1670, 78No135, 78No135 (Merger), and the said judgment subject to review became final and conclusive as the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’

C. On April 11, 2011, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the instant judgment subject to a new trial with this Court Decision 201No61, and on May 7, 2013, this court rendered a clear judgment that the Emergency Measure No. 9 applied to the instant case was unconstitutional. As such, the judgment subject to a new trial rendered a decision to commence a new trial based on the determination that there was a ground for a new trial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the said decision to commence a new trial became final

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 9 is an obvious violation of the Constitution, and Defendant’s act is not only a legitimate act of exercising citizens’ rights, but also a justifiable act of the Defendant, even if not, the Defendant has not distorted facts as stated in the judgment of the court below. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that found Defendant guilty

B. The lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment for a short term, three years of maximum term, and three years of suspension of qualifications) against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

3. We examine the grounds for appeal by the defendant.