The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of this case as to the progress of judgment.

A. The Defendants were indicted under the Seoul District Criminal Court 77Gohap86, 908 (Joint) as the following facts charged. On February 6, 1978, the above court convicted the Defendants of all the charges, and sentenced the Defendants to two years of imprisonment and two years of suspension of qualification by applying the National Security Act and the Presidential Emergency Measure for the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”).

B. The Defendants and prosecutors appealed against the above judgment, and the Seoul High Court rejected the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing on June 29, 1978, and reversed the judgment of the court below by accepting each Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing, and sentenced each Defendant A to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and suspension of qualifications for one year, one year and six months, and one year and six months of suspension of qualifications for each of the Defendants B and C (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to retrial”) and the part against Defendant A and B in the above judgment became final and conclusive as waiver of the right to appeal on June 30, 1978, and the part against Defendant C became final and conclusive as the lapse of the period of appeal on July 7, 1978.

C. On June 15, 2011, the Defendants filed a petition for a new trial as to the instant judgment subject to a new trial with this Court Decision 201No96. On April 24, 2013, the court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the grounds that the Emergency Decree No. 9 applied to the instant case was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the judgment subject to new trial rendered a decision to commence a new trial based on the determination that there was a ground for new trial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the said decision to commence the new trial became final

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In this case of mistake of facts, Defendants 1 had been employed as a chain reaction with the indication of the dissatisfaction against the initial head of the School decoration’s handling of the students via the students. As such, the Defendants will be expanded to this case’s demonstration.