The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of innocence against the Defendants is published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is as shown in the annexed indictment.

2. Case progress

A. Defendants were indicted as the charge of violating the public law in the form of 76 high-level 67, 76 high-level 188(combined) in the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court.

On August 2, 1976, the above court found the Defendants guilty of charges (However, the court found the Defendants guilty of some charges), and sentenced the Defendant A to three years of imprisonment, suspension of qualifications, three years of suspended execution, five years of imprisonment, two years of suspension of qualifications, and four years of suspended execution (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”).

B. The Defendants and the Prosecutor appealed against the above judgment, but dismissed on December 2, 1976, and the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On September 23, 2013, the Defendants filed a petition for a new trial on the instant judgment subject to a new trial with the instant court.

On February 10, 2014, this Court rendered a ruling of commencing a new trial, and the above ruling became final and conclusive as it is.

3. Judgment on the Defendants’ violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree

A. In a case where a penal law, which was repealed or invalidated, loses its effect retroactively due to a decision of unconstitutionality by the Constitutional Court, or is declared unconstitutional by the court, the court shall render a judgment of innocence pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act for a prosecuted case against which a public prosecution was instituted by applying the relevant statutes. Furthermore, even in a case where the penal law was repealed at the time of a new trial, if the abolition was based on a statute which has no effect due to its abolition at the time of a new trial, it constitutes a ground for innocence under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and constitutes a ground for acquittal under Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do5986, Dec. 16, 2010).