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

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: around 00:30 on March 14, 1976, the Defendant, at the police station located in the Dobong-gu Seoul Police Station located in the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Police Station, informed the Defendant of the complaints regarding the protective measures for the suspicion of violating traffic prohibition; and 50 persons, such as C, who are police officers of the above police station, are heard by 50 persons, such as C, etc., who are the police officers of the above police station.

“Publicly slandered No. 9 of the Presidential Emergency Decree”.

2. Review of the progress records of the instant case reveals the following facts.

A. As stated in the above facts charged, the Defendant was indicted for a violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, the Government Branch of the Seoul District Court’s 76 Gohap 130,000. On November 18, 1976, the said court rendered a judgment to suspend the execution of three years in one year and six months in one year and six months in one year and six months in one of suspension of qualifications, and the instant judgment subject to the judgment subject to the retrial became final and conclusive on November 26, 1976, pursuant to Articles 7 and 9 (1) (d) of the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the national security and the protection of public order.

B. A prosecutor filed a request for a retrial regarding the instant judgment subject to a retrial, which became final and conclusive on November 2, 2017 by this court.

3. Determination

A. In the event of a serious crisis that is unable to be dealt with by the means of exercising power in accordance with the constitutional order at ordinary times of the unconstitutionality of Emergency Measures No. 9, the president’s decision on the national emergency power which is exercised to ensure the existence of the State should be respected. However, such emergency power should be exercised within the minimum necessary scope to eliminate the direct cause of the crisis when the State is in a serious crisis, and must comply with the requirements and limitations for the exercise of the constitutional power that requires the state’s emergency power.