The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. According to the records of the instant case, the following facts are recognized.

A. The Defendant was prosecuted on the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, and the Seoul District Criminal Court convicted the Defendant of the charges on July 5, 197, in the case of 77 high liability342, and sentenced the Defendant to six years of imprisonment and six years of suspension of qualification by applying the Presidential Emergency Decree (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) aimed at protecting the national security and public order.

B. As the Defendant appealed, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below on November 2, 197 in the case of 77No1196, and sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification (hereinafter “the judgment on review”). Although the Defendant appealed, the appeal was dismissed, the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On October 18, 2013, the Defendant filed a petition for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial with this Court No. 2013Hun-Ma112, and on February 20, 2014, it is apparent that the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 applied to the instant case was unconstitutional. As such, the judgment subject to new trial rendered a decision to commence 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 new trial became final and conclusive

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts among the facts charged in this case.

paragraphs (c) and (c)

Despite the fact that there was no crime such as the statement in the port, the court below found the defendant guilty. Thus, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

3. The defendant's above grounds for appeal are examined ex officio prior to the judgment.

A. Whether the Emergency Measure No. 9 is unconstitutional (1).