1. The part of the lower judgment against the Defendants is reversed.

2. The Defendants are not guilty.

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

A. The Defendants were prosecuted on the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree (hereinafter “Emergency Decree”) No. 9 for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree”). On February 26, 1979, the said court found the Defendants guilty of both the charges against the Defendants on February 26, 1979, sentenced Defendant A, B, and net D imprisonment for one year and one year of suspension of qualification, and one year of imprisonment for a short term of eight months and suspension of qualification for Defendant C, respectively.

B. Defendants and the prosecutor appealed against the above judgment as the Daegu High Court 79No276.

On July 5, 1979, the above court rejected the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, but accepted the rest of the Defendants except the Defendant A’s assertion of unfair sentencing. The judgment of the court below reversed the part on Defendant B, C, and network D and sentenced Defendant C to eight months of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications and eight months of suspension of qualifications, and sentenced Defendant C to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of six months and six months of suspension of qualifications, and sentenced Defendant A and prosecutor’s appeal (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to retrial”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On December 17, 2013, Defendant A, B, C, and Defendant Network D filed the instant petition for retrial. On July 3, 2015, this court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the ground that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial.

After that, there was no legitimate filing of a complaint within the appeal period, the decision to commence the retrial became final and conclusive as it is.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since Defendants 1’ act of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles cannot be deemed to cause serious threat to national security or public peace and order, they do not meet the requirements for the crime of violation of Emergency Decree No. 9.

In addition, Defendant D only sought the above demonstration and participated in the above demonstration.