beta
Text
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who was dissatisfied with the government policies at ordinary times. At around 16:00 on June 13, 1975, the Defendant distorted the facts by saying, “The President is bad, and the President is Domine. The President will be a Domine. The Saemaul project will be carried out slowly.” The Defendant distorted the facts by saying, “The President will be too unreasonable, and the President will be bad.”
2. According to the records of this case, the following facts are recognized.
A. On November 20, 1975, the Daegu District Court rendered a judgment that recognized the Defendant guilty on the grounds that the facts charged in the instant case violated the Emergency Measure under Article 53 of the former Constitution (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980), and sentenced the Presidential Emergency Decree for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order (amended by Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 of May 13, 1975; Presidential Emergency Decree No. 67 of December 7, 1979; Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9; hereinafter referred to as “Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9”) and the latter part of paragraphs 7 and 1(a) of the same Article, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for one year and suspension of qualification for one year (hereinafter referred to as “instant judgment subject to a retrial”).
B. Accordingly, while the Defendant and the prosecutor appealed to the Daegu High Court regarding the instant judgment subject to a retrial, the said appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on February 27, 1976, and the Defendant again appealed to the Supreme Court. However, the said appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the appeal on May 25, 1976, which became final and conclusive as it is, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.
3. Determination
A. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision of unconstitutionality as to the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9 on March 21, 2013, did not meet the legitimacy and method of legislative purpose as to the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9 in the Decision No. 2010Hun-Ba70, 132, 170 (Joint) and did not meet the legitimacy and method of legislative purpose, and is in violation of the principle of no punishment without the law