The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Case progress

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

(1) As stated in the summary of the facts charged, the Defendant was indicted as the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, and the Seoul Criminal Court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of one year and six months, a long term of two years, and a suspension of qualification for the Defendant on November 2, 1978.

(2) The Defendant and the prosecutor appealed against the above judgment as Seoul High Court 78No1626, and the above court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on February 28, 1979, but reversed the judgment below and sentenced the Defendant to a short term of one year, a maximum of one year and six months, and a suspension of qualification for one year and six months.

(3) The Defendant appealed with Supreme Court Decision 79Do675 regarding the instant judgment subject to a retrial, but the final appeal was dismissed on June 12, 1979 and became final and conclusive.

B. On April 28, 2011, the Defendant first filed the instant request for retrial. On July 4, 2013, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial (hereinafter “decision to commence a retrial of this case”) on the grounds that the Presidential Emergency Measure for National Security and the Protection of Public Order (Presidential Emergency Measure No.9, May 13, 1975) (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No.9”) was unconstitutional and invalid from the beginning, and thus, there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the decision to commence a retrial of this case became final and conclusive as is, since there was no legitimate filing of an appeal within the appeal period.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) did not commit any act related to the facts charged in this case, and even if he did not violate Emergency Decree No. 9, the court below found Defendant guilty.