The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant committed suicide against five taxi passengers on May 10, 197.

D said that it was an act of distorted and spreading facts by stating that it was well-known after six years.

2. According to the records of the instant case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. In the instant case No. 77, Oct. 7, 1977, 197, the instant court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for eight months and suspension of qualification for the purpose of national security and the protection of public order (hereinafter “emergency Decree No. 9”) by applying Articles 7 and 1 (a) of the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”), and sentenced the Defendant to a suspension of qualification for one year (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). (b) The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed against this and appealed with the Daegu High Court No. 77No. 1009 on Jan. 26, 1978, the appellate court dismissed both the Defendant and the Prosecutor, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on January 27, 197.

(c)

On October 26, 2017, a prosecutor filed a request for a retrial against a judgment subject to a retrial pursuant to Article 424 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that “The Emergency Measure No. 9 is null and void, and there are grounds for retrial prescribed in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial on the grounds of which a conviction was rendered based on this,”

On May 1, 2018, this Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the grounds that there are grounds for a new trial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a new trial, and the said decision became final and conclusive as it is.

3. Determination

A. The President’s decision on the national emergency power that is exercised to ensure the existence of the State should be respected in the event of a serious crisis that is unable to cope with by the means of exercising power in accordance with the constitutional order at ordinary times of the unconstitutionality of Emergency Decree No. 9. However, this state’s emergency power is within the minimum that is essential to remove the direct cause of the crisis when the State is in a serious crisis.