The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. According to the records of the instant case, the following facts are recognized.

A. The Defendant and the applicant for a retrial (hereinafter “Defendant”) were indicted on the facts charged as indicated in the separate sheet. The Daejeon District Court found the Defendant guilty on February 9, 197, and sentenced two years and six months of imprisonment and two years of suspension of qualification to the Defendant by applying the Presidential Emergency Measure for the Protection of National Security and Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”).

B. Following the Defendant’s appeal, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below on June 21, 1979 in the case 79No462, and sentenced one year and six months of imprisonment and two years of suspension of qualification to the Defendant (hereinafter “the judgment on review”). The judgment subject to review became final and conclusive around that time because the Defendant did not appeal.

C. After that, the Defendant asserted that there was a ground for retrial, such as Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in the judgment subject to a retrial on the grounds that it is obvious that the presidential emergency measure subparag. 9 was unconstitutional, and that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the same Act. On May 13, 2013, inasmuch as the crime of the judgment subject to a retrial was obviously governed by the Emergency Measure No. 9, and that the Emergency Measure No. 9 was deemed unconstitutional since the beginning, it constitutes “when there is a new evidence to acknowledge innocence of a person who was sentenced to a crime of conviction,” and the decision to commence a retrial was rendered on the ground that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When considering the circumstances of the defendant's defendant, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the circumstances of the prosecutor’s defendant, the sentence imposed by the court below is too unfasible and unfair.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Emergency Measure No. 9 is unconstitutional (1)