The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) on July 11, 1976, the Defendant drinks her and drinks at the three pages of the public prosecution and D located in Seocho-si, 18:00 on July 11, 1976, and (b) “the taxes that the people pay in the world as the tax for evague in evague” are boomed by E-marcing and neting.

E Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz.

Japan was dead.

The U.S. also has no one, and E is called as slova, if one is the same.

“In many cases, the language of will was fluent and disseminated by speaking as a large interest.”

2. Review of the progress records of the case reveals the following facts.

A. The Defendant was indicted for a violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, which committed a crime of violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 76 Gohap 60.

On November 16, 1976, the Gangnam Branch of the Chuncheon District Court found the Defendant guilty of the above charges and sentenced the Defendant to one year of imprisonment and suspension of qualification (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). B. Although both the Defendant and the public prosecutor appealed, the Seoul High Court dismissed all appeals filed by the Defendant and the public prosecutor on February 24, 197 (Seoul High Court Decision 76No2200), and the above judgment became final and conclusive on the same day due to waiver of the right to appeal (Seoul High Court Decision 76No2200).

(c)

Since the Emergency Measure No. 9 of October 30, 2017 is unconstitutional or invalid, a prosecutor has grounds for retrial in a judgment subject to a retrial, which declared a conviction on the grounds of such unconstitutionality or invalidity.

In accordance with Article 424 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a petition for a retrial was filed.

On November 29, 2018, there are grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in a judgment subject to a retrial.

On the other hand, the decision to commence the review was confirmed as it is.

3. Determination

A. In the event of a serious crisis that is unable to cope with the method of exercising power in accordance with the constitutional order at the time of peace of the unconstitutionality of Emergency Decree No. 9, the president's decision on the national emergency power which is exercised to ensure the existence of the nation should be respected. However, this state's emergency power should be respected.