The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The defendant is not guilty.

1. Case progress

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

(1) The Defendant was indicted for violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, as stated in the summary of the facts charged, by the Seoul District Court Decision 77Da341, 346. The above court held the Defendant guilty of both the facts charged against the Defendant on January 28, 1978, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months and suspension of qualifications for one year and six months.

(2) The Defendant and the prosecutor appealed against the above judgment as Seoul High Court 78No292, and the above court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts on May 12, 1978, but reversed the lower judgment’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and subsequently sentenced the Defendant to one year of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualification.

(3) The Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court regarding the instant judgment subject to a retrial, but on September 12, 1978, the final appeal was dismissed and became final and conclusive.

B. On May 24, 2013, the Defendant first filed the instant request for retrial. On October 29, 2013, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the part of the instant judgment subject to retrial (hereinafter “decision to commence a retrial”) on the ground that “The Presidential Emergency Measure (Presidential Emergency Measure No.9, May 13, 1975) for the protection of national security and public order (Presidential Emergency Measure No.9, hereinafter “Emergency Measure No.9”) was unconstitutional and invalid from the beginning, and thus, there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The instant decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive as is.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the violation of emergency measures such as the instant facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment and one year and six months of suspension of qualification) is unfair.