The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

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

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

A. On November 28, 1979, the second official martial law conference recognized the defendant as guilty of the charge of the violation of the presidential emergency measures (hereinafter “emergency measures No. 9”) for the requirements against the defendant and the requester for reexamination (hereinafter “the defendant”), and for the protection of national security and public order, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a maximum of three years and a short of two years and suspension of qualifications for three years (the second official martial law general law council No. 79 U.S. 4, Nov. 28, 1979, suspension of qualifications for a maximum of one year and a short of one year, and suspension of qualifications for the first time on December 5, 1979). The defendant appealed against this judgment and sentenced the defendant to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a period of up to five years and one year, and the High Court of Law No. 1980, Mar. 6, 1980; the judgment of the court below was reversed on the ground that the suspended sentence No. 1978, Aug. 19, 197).

Accordingly, the original judgment became final and conclusive by the Defendant’s waiver of the appeal.

(d)

After that, on April 12, 2016, the Defendant filed a petition for a retrial on the judgment subject to a retrial with the Court No. 2016 re-No. 71.

On October 26, 2015, the court rendered a decision to commence the reexamination on September 9, 2016 pursuant to Article 11(4) of the D Compensation Act and Article 435(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that there are special grounds for reexamination as stipulated in Article 11(1) of the D Compensation Act (hereinafter “D Compensation Act”).

After that, the decision to commence the above review was confirmed as it is, even though the appeal period was too excessive.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, 1) Emergency Decree No. 9 is violated, and emergency measures applied to the facts charged in the instant case.