The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of the decision subject to review and the decision to commence a retrial.

A. On February 24, 1979, the Defendant was indicted as the charges in the attached Form 78 high 258 high mix 78 high mix 258 of the Seoul District Court, and on February 24, 1979, Article 7 and Paragraph 1 of the Presidential Emergency Measures for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Measures No. 9”).

(b).

(d)

The defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment and 1 year of suspension of qualification.

B. As to this, the Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed, the Seoul High Court reversed the part against the Defendant on June 13, 1979, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of two years and a suspension of qualification for ten months (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). The Defendant appealed with the Supreme Court Decision 79Do1762 on September 11, 1979, but the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it became final and conclusive on September 11, 1979.

(c)

On October 31, 2017, the prosecutor filed a request for a retrial for the benefit of the defendant in accordance with Article 424 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On February 19, 2018, the Seoul High Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the grounds that there was a reason that there was a reason for re-examination under Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a new trial. The decision to commence the new trial became final and conclusive as it is with

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, although the Defendant did not have participated in the demonstration as stated in the facts charged, was erroneous in the judgment below which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one month of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualifications) is too uneased and unfair.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

A. The former Constitution of the Republic of Korea (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980) (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980; hereinafter “new Constitution”).