The defendant shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment against the defendant not guilty.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant sent female life to the highest direction in a passenger car, which had taken from the large bathing beach located in Taecheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do to Taecheon-do, Taecheon-do. (b) around October 1978, the Defendant of the facts charged.

When the State is strong and the society is peaceful, whether it will continue to perform the work by cultivating the ice and continuing it.

“In making the speech and behavior, I ambling and spreading a will on the national safety and public order.”

2. Case progress

A. On June 4, 1979, the Seoul Criminal Court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the Presidential Emergency Decree (Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, May 13, 1975; hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the national security and the protection of public order, sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for two years and suspension of qualifications for two years (Seoul Criminal Court Decision 79Gohap26; hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”), and the Seoul High Court rendered a judgment that dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendant on October 23, 1979 (Seoul High Court Decision 79No. 839). The judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive as it is for the judgment subject to a retrial.

B. On March 23, 2018, a prosecutor filed a petition for a new trial with respect to the instant judgment subject to a new trial. This court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on April 13, 2018, and the said decision to commence a new trial became final and conclusive as it is.

3. On March 21, 2013, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision that the Emergency Measure No. 9, which was based on conviction against the Defendant in the judgment subject to a retrial, was unconstitutional through the full bench’s decision by all the 2010HunBa70, 132, and 170 (merger). On April 18, 2013, the Supreme Court also declared that the Emergency Measure No. 9, which was based on conviction against the Defendant, was unconstitutional and invalid since it was in violation of the Constitution from the beginning to the beginning.

In case where any penal law has retroactively lost its effect due to the decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court, or the court has declared that it is unconstitutional, the court shall do so.