The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

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

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, at around 07:20 on April 19, 1978, 23, including Nonindicted Party D, etc., 23 at the 15th house in Seoul detention center, where the Defendant was detained at around 07:20, and the neighbor’s reduction of capital, “the removal of a new constitution,” “the removal of an emergency measure,” “the removal of a democratic person,” and “the release of a democratic person,” respectively, goes beyond once by a large voice of relief.

5. 18. 07.00. Around 07:00, 23 of the above D et al., who are being able to reduce the number of neighboring banks, and claimed the abolition of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea by openly slandering three times each presidential emergency measures No. 9 and by openly slandering each presidential emergency measures No. 9 and demonstration, such as “the removal of a new constitution,” “the removal of a provisional measure,” “the release of a democratic person,” and “nicking to a presidential presidential system.”

B. On September 12, 1978, the Cheongju District Court convicted the Defendant of all the above charges, and sentenced the Defendant to two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for the Defendant (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”).

(2) On July 24, 2013, the Defendant appealed, but withdrawn an appeal on August 1, 1979, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive at that time. (2) On July 24, 2013, the Defendant filed a motion for a retrial with the Cheongju District Court. The said court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on August 23, 2013, and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

2. Determination

A. In the event of a serious crisis that is unable to cope with the unconstitutionality of Emergency Decree No. 9, the President's decision on the national emergency power that is exercised to ensure the existence of the State should be respected, but such national emergency power is faced with a serious crisis by the State.