(a) Whether the special amnesty and the sentence of a punishment are invalidated;

B. Whether the decision of exemption from security measures under the Social Security Act and the decision of suspension of punishment become invalid (negative)

1. A person who has not been sentenced to the invalidation of a sentence by Article 81 of the Criminal Act shall lose the effect of the sentence of a special amnesty pursuant to the proviso of Article 5 (1) 2 of the Amnesty Act, or a person who is not subject to the adjudication of invalidation of a sentence pursuant to subparagraph 1 of Article 5 of the Attorney-at-Law Act,

2. Even if a person subject to the security measure under the Social Security Act was subjected to the decision of exemption from the security measure under Article 7 of the same Act, the term of the punishment shall not lose its effect.

(1) Article 5 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, Article 5 of the Amnesty Act, and Article 7 of the Social Safety Act

[Judgment of the court below]

The Minister of Justice shall exercise the authority of the Minister of Justice to write down, collect, and correct the litigation performer.

Seoul High Court Decision 79Gu539 delivered on March 18, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

According to the amnesty law, amnesty is divided into general amnesty and special amnesty (Article 2 of the same Act), while general amnesty is invalidated (Article 5 (1) 1 of the same Act), special amnesty shall be exempted from execution of punishment: Provided, That special amnesty may be invalidated if there are special circumstances (Article 5 (1) 2 of the same Act). Therefore, special amnesty shall be exempted from execution of punishment and it shall be a separate disposition in order to lose the validity of the sentence. Accordingly, as determined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no violation of the provisions of Article 5 (1) 1 of the Attorney-at-Law Act, and thus, it shall not be justified in the misapprehension of legal principles or the provisions of Article 7 of the Act, as the plaintiff did not have the effect of the term of punishment under Article 81 of the Criminal Act or the term of punishment under Article 5 (1) 2 of the Act.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)