The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The defendant is not guilty.

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

Defendant

The person who filed a request for retrial (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") was charged with the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 as stated in the attached Form No. 9.

On January 28, 1978, the Seoul District Court found the defendant guilty of all the charges against the defendant, and sentenced him to imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of one year and six months, a short of one year and a suspension of qualification for one year and six months.

B. The Defendant appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 78No292 on the above judgment.

On May 12, 1978, the Seoul High Court accepted the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing and reversed the lower judgment, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of one year and two years in suspension of qualification.

(hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) C.

The Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 78Do1526 on September 12, 1978, but the final appeal was dismissed on September 12, 1978, and the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

On April 11, 2011, the Defendant filed a request for retrial of this case, and accordingly, this Court rendered a final decision on May 30, 2013 as it became final and conclusive.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Although Defendant (1) was not guilty of committing the same crime as indicated in the facts charged in this case, the lower court convicted the Defendant. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

3. In a case where the statutes on ex officio punishment have retroactively lost its effect due to the decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court, or the court has declared that the said statutes are unconstitutional, the court shall not prosecute the accused case against whom a public prosecution was instituted by applying the relevant statutes in accordance with