The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

A. On November 28, 1979, the 2nd session of the ordinary law of martial law, which is the lower court, found the Defendant guilty of the charge of the presidential emergency measures (hereinafter “Emergency Measures No. 9”) for the sake of national security and the protection of public order as stated in the attached Form, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for three years and suspension of qualifications for three years (Article 79 deemed to have been sentenced on November 28, 1979), and the competent authority reduced the imprisonment for one year and suspension of qualifications for one year on December 5, 1979.

B. The Defendant appealed against this and filed an appeal. On March 6, 1980, the Military Court-Martial Law Conference of the Army, such as the High Court of Martial Law, reversed the judgment of the lower court on the ground that the Emergency Decree No. 9 was released as of December 8, 1979, and sentenced to acquittal as to the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9, and sentenced to a suspended sentence of two years for a year (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”) by recognizing the Defendant as guilty (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”).

The Defendant renounced a final appeal and became final and conclusive as it is.

(d)

On January 2, 2017, the Defendant filed a petition for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial with the Trade Union (No. 2017). On May 1, 2017, this Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the grounds that there are grounds for a special retrial under Article 11(1) of the Act on the Restoration of Honor and Compensation, etc. to Persons Related to the Demar Democratic War, and the said decision became final and conclusive as is.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Since the misunderstanding of facts and violation of the Emergency Decree No. 9 of the misunderstanding of the legal principles were removed, the judgment of acquittal should be pronounced, and the fact that the requirements have caused public danger.

In addition, there is also insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant committed violence, intimidation or damage.

In addition, the act of the defendant is aimed at protecting the fundamental order of free democracy.