1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The claims of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed B, C, and D.

Facts of recognition

From April 15, 1978 to September 15, 1978, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was detained on November 26, 1978 on the charge that he committed a violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”), and was indicted at the Jeonju District Court’s Military Branch of the same charges around that time.

On May 4, 1979, the Plaintiff appealed a conviction of imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months and suspension of qualification for a period of one year and six months in the Jeonju District Court’s Gunsan Branch, which was sentenced by the Gwangju High Court on September 21, 1979, but was sentenced to the dismissal of appeal by the Gwangju High Court on September 21, 1979.

(3) The judgment of the court below is reversed and the judgment of the court of first instance is acquitted in accordance with Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on December 28, 1979. The judgment of the court below is reversed in entirety and the judgment of the court of second instance was rendered on December 4, 1979, and on December 28, 1979, "Emergency Measure No. 9 was removed by Presidential Notice No. 67 of December 8, 1979, and this constitutes a case where punishment is repealed due to the repeal of statutes after the crime was committed."

(Supreme Court Decision 79Do2391). Meanwhile, on May 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for criminal compensation for having been detained in violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 on the same day. On October 15, 2013, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment of acquittal, which is in violation of the Constitution, and thus null and void since the first violation of Emergency Decree No. 9, applicable to the facts charged against the Plaintiff, is deemed null and void. As such, in a case where a public prosecution was instituted by applying the Emergency Decree No. 9, which is unconstitutional and invalid, the court should have rendered a judgment of innocence, on the ground that “the Defendant case is not committed as a crime” under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and