The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

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

A. On November 28, 1979, the 2nd Military Court Conference on the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Law of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Emergency No. 9”) found the Defendant guilty of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 for the requirements against the Defendant and national security and the protection of public order, and sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification (No. 2. 11, Nov. 28, 1979). (B) The Defendant appealed against this. On March 6, 1980, the Military Court Conference reversed the judgment of the court below on the ground that the Emergency Decree No. 9 was cancelled on December 8, 1979, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year and not more than two years (No. 1, 28. 1, 30. 16.

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

(d)

After that, on June 3, 2015, the Defendant filed a petition for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial with this Court No. 2015 (No. 163).

This Court decided on April 6, 2015 by the Defendant as a person related to the fact-finding and the restoration of honor of related persons, and decided on April 18, 2015, and decided on the commencement of the retrial on August 18, 2015 pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Act on the Compensation and Compensation, etc. for Damages to Persons Related to the Mapo Democratic Aviation (hereinafter “the Compensation and Compensation and Compensation and Compensation and Compensation Act”), on the ground that there are special grounds for retrial under Article 11(4) of the Marina Dispute Compensation and Article 435(1) of the Criminal Litigation 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 grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Violation 9 of Emergency Decree No. 9, which was applied to the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant was dismissed, and thus, the judgment of acquittal is rendered against the Defendant.