The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Finality of judgment subject to retrial and decision to commence retrial

A. On September 21, 197, the Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court recognized the facts charged as stated in the separate sheet against the Defendant on September 21, 197, and sentenced three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for the purpose of applying Articles 7 and 1(a) of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) issued pursuant to Article 53 of the former Constitution of the Republic of Korea (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980; hereinafter “new Constitution”).

(Seoul District Court Decision 77Gohap28, the judgment of the court below). (B)

The defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal respectively. On December 15, 1977, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the sentence of the court below was more severe, and sentenced to two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, suspension of qualifications, two years of suspension of qualifications (Seoul High Court Decision 77No1565, Seoul High Court Decision 77No1565) and around that time,

C. On November 6, 2017, a prosecutor filed a request for retrial on the grounds that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial on June 27, 2018, and the said decision became final and conclusive.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant (in fact-finding and inappropriate sentencing) did not commit a crime as stated in the instant facts charged, and thus, the lower court erred by misunderstanding facts, and the lower court’s sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing of the prosecutor (e.g., e., e., e., e., t

We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.

The Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of Emergency Decree No. 9 is that the Emergency Decree No. 9, which was issued on the basis of Article 53 of the U.S. Constitution, violates the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people beyond the limits for the purpose of its issuance.