The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

On September 15, 1976, the Cheongju District Court recognized the facts charged as indicated in the separate sheet against the Defendant, and sentenced two years and two years of imprisonment by treating each of the crimes as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and imposed two years of suspension of qualifications by treating each of the crimes as concurrent crimes under Article 53 of the former Constitution (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980; hereinafter referred to as the “former Emergency Decree for the Protection of National Security and Public Order” (hereinafter referred to as “Emergency Measure No. 9”), and Article 4(1) of the former Anti-Public Act (repealed by Act No. 3318 of Dec. 31, 1980; hereinafter the same shall apply).

(Cheongju District Court 76 Gohap56). (b)

On December 21, 1976, the judgment of the court below was reversed and the defendant was sentenced to one year and one year of qualification suspension on the grounds that the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal respectively.

(This Court Decision 76No1904 delivered on March 8, 1976). The Defendant filed a final appeal against this decision, but the final appeal was dismissed on March 8, 1976 and became final and conclusive.

C. On July 17, 2018, the Defendant asserted that Emergency Measure No. 9 applied in a judgment subject to a retrial was unconstitutional, and that the Defendant was arrested without a warrant pursuant to Emergency Measure No. 9, and filed for a retrial on the judgment subject to a retrial. On October 30, 2018, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial as to the judgment subject to a retrial on the grounds that there are grounds for a retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 and 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, and

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant, including mistake of facts, was in a state of mental disorder due to excessive noise, etc., and the Defendant’s remarks in this case.