The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

347,00 won from the defendant.

The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of the case.

On October 19, 1976, the Defendant was indicted for violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act and for violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree (Presidential Emergency Decree No.9, May 13, 1975) for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No.9”) by the Seoul District Court. On October 19, 1976, the Defendant was convicted of all the charges against the Defendant, and the said court sentenced the Defendant to a penalty of imprisonment for three years, suspension of qualifications for three years and 347,00 won.

The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed against the above judgment as the Gwangju High Court 76No591, and the above court dismissed the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s appeal on February 24, 197 (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”), and on May 24, 197, the Defendant’s appeal was dismissed, and the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

On the other hand, since the above Emergency Decree No. 9 is unconstitutional, there are grounds for retrial as stipulated in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 47 of the Constitutional Court Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, and Article 20 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 47 of the Constitutional Court Act, and Article 420 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant was investigated at the time and was treated unfairly, such as assault, etc. by the investigator. The above acts of investigators constitute the crime of illegal arrest and detention as stipulated in Article 124 of the Criminal Act, but cannot be punished due to the statute of limitations

On March 10, 2014, the Court rendered a ruling of commencing a new trial on the commencement of the first trial on March 10, 2014, and the Emergency Decree No. 9 is null and void from the beginning. Thus, there exists a ground for retrial under Article 47 subparag. 3 of the Constitutional Court Act for a violation of Emergency Decree No. 9, and also for a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act, there exists a ground for retrial