The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

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

A. The Defendant was prosecuted as the Seoul Criminal District Court 75Gohap988, 993 (Joint) on charges of violating the National Security Act, and the above court convicted the Defendant of the charges on April 30, 1976, and sentenced the Defendant to seven years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for seven years, and forfeiture.

B. Of the above judgment, the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealeded as Seoul High Court 76No1178 regarding the part of the Defendant, and the above court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts on August 31, 1976, accepted the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and reversed the part of the judgment below against the Defendant and sentenced the Defendant to five years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification, five years of confiscation and five years of confiscation (i.e., franchise radio, one set, one set, and one set) (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to retrial”).

C. Although the Defendant appealed, the Supreme Court dismissed the Defendant’s final appeal on December 14, 1976, which became final and conclusive as it became final and conclusive.

(Supreme Court Decision 76Do3697). D.

After that, on June 20, 2012, the Defendant filed a petition for a retrial on the instant judgment subject to a retrial with this Court 2012No43.

This court recognized that "the defendant was investigated under the state of voluntary confinement by the investigator of the Central Information Department at the house of Ma M on October 18, 1975, and was detained until the issuance of a detention warrant to the defendant on November 1, 1975. The investigator of the Central Information Department forced the defendant to make a confession during the period of illegal confinement, and forced the defendant to make a forced confession during the period of the above illegal confinement, and forced the defendant to do so, and he did not have any locked investigation," and the above acts of the investigator of the Central Information Department correspond to Article 124 (Unlawful Arrest and Illegal Confinement) of the Criminal Act and Article 125 (Crime of Violence) of the Criminal Act, and the statute of limitations has expired for five years thereafter.