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 September 8, 1978, the Seoul District Criminal Court convicted the Defendant of the charge of the violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree (Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, May 13, 1975; hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the national security and the protection of public order, and sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification.

(Seoul Criminal Court 78 Gohap286). (b)

The defendant and the prosecutor appealed against the above judgment of the court of first instance, and this court reversed the judgment of the court of first instance on December 7, 1978 and sentenced the defendant to two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification.

(Seoul High Court Decision 78No1285, hereinafter referred to as the "Supreme Court Decision on Review").

The defendant appealed against the above appellate judgment, and the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal on February 13, 1979.

(Supreme Court Decision 78Do3186). Accordingly, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

On October 15, 2014, a claimant for retrial filed a request for retrial of this case. On March 23, 2015, this court rendered a decision to commence retrial on the ground that there was a ground for retrial 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 to commence the retrial became final and conclusive as it is.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 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. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

A. The statutes applicable to facts constituting an offense in a case where a new trial was commenced on the premise of judgment are the statutes at the time of new judgment.

Therefore, if the law at the time of the judgment subject to a retrial is amended, the court shall apply the law at the time of the judgment.