The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of each judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. According to the progress records of the case, the following facts are recognized:

A. On July 28, 1981, the Defendants were indicted with the same content as the facts charged in the attached Form to the Seoul Criminal District Court (Seoul Criminal Court 81Gohap738), and on December 15, 1981, the court of original judgment convicted the Defendants of all the facts charged, and sentenced the Defendants A 15 years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications 15 years of suspension of qualifications and 7 years of suspension of qualifications to the Defendants B, respectively.

B. Both the Defendants appealed to the lower judgment, and the Prosecutor appealed only to the part A of the lower judgment (Seoul High Court 82No374), and the appellate court reversed the lower judgment on April 20, 1982 on the grounds that the Prosecutor rejected the Defendants’ assertion of mistake, but the Prosecutor changed his indictment at the appellate court, and subsequently sentenced the Defendant A to 15 years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications, 15 years of suspension of qualifications, 7 years of imprisonment and 7 years of suspension of qualifications, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) C.

Therefore, the Defendants appealed by Supreme Court Decision 82Do1277, but the Supreme Court dismissed all the Defendants’ appeals on July 27, 1982, thereby the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

After that, on March 31, 2011, the Defendants filed a request for a retrial against the instant judgment subject to a retrial with this Court No. 201No48. As to this, the court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on September 25, 2012 on the grounds that there were grounds for retrial as stipulated in Article 420 subparag. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the instant judgment subject to a retrial, and thereafter the said decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive as is, due to the lapse of the filing

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. There is a suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants as direct evidence, which corresponds to or seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles). Each of the above evidences is illegal arrest, confinement and confinement against the Defendants.