The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Case progress

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

(1) As indicated in the summary of the facts charged, Defendant A and B were indicted under the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9. As to the facts charged, Defendant A and B were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 4 years, 4 years suspension of qualifications, and 3 years suspension of qualifications for Defendant A and 3 years for Defendant B, on February 16, 1977, and the aforementioned court held the Defendant guilty of both the facts charged against Defendant A and B on February 16, 197.

Belgium and the prosecutor appealed against the above judgment as Seoul High Court 77No420, and on June 1, 1977, the above court rejected the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, but reversed the judgment of the court below, and sentenced the Defendant A to two years and six months of imprisonment, suspension of qualifications two years and six years and suspension of qualifications, and two years of suspension of qualifications to the Defendant B.

(2) On September 13, 197, the appeal was dismissed and became final and conclusive on September 13, 197, while the Defendants appealed by Supreme Court Decision 77Do2040 regarding the instant judgment subject to a retrial.

B. On October 13, 2011, the Defendants filed the instant request for retrial. On July 5, 2013, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the part of the Defendants among the decisions subject to retrial (hereinafter “decision to commence a retrial”). Since the Presidential Emergency Decree (Presidential Emergency Decree No.9, May 13, 1975) for the protection of national security and public order (Presidential Emergency Decree No.9, hereinafter “Emergency Decree No.9”) was unconstitutional and invalid from the beginning, the Defendants determined that there was grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and subsequently, the instant decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive as is, on the grounds that there was no legitimate filing of an appeal within the appeal period.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants (i.e., mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) stated in the facts charged in the instant case.