The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the case.

A. On November 18, 1975, the Defendant was indicted on the charge of the instant facts charged by the Daejeon District Court Hongsung Branching 75Rahap62. On November 18, 1975, the said court convicted the Defendant of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) aimed at protecting the national security and public order against the Defendant, and sentenced the Defendant to five years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed on the ground of mistake of facts, unreasonable sentencing, and prosecutor’s appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing. The Seoul High Court, on March 23, 1976, rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing by the above court 75No1628, and reversed the Defendant’s sole acceptance of the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and subsequently sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence for

(hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”). The judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive after the lapse of the period of appeal on March 31, 1976.

C. On February 17, 2011, the applicant filed the instant request for retrial, and this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial (hereinafter “decision to commence a retrial of this case”) on the ground that the Emergency Measure No. 9 of April 24, 2013 was unconstitutional and invalid from the beginning, and thus, rendered a decision to commence a retrial (hereinafter “decision to commence a retrial of this case”) pursuant to Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the said decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive as is, on the grounds that no legitimate

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The contents of the facts charged in this case are different from facts, and only one talks that can be done by anyone, and these are problematic by exaggeration of people. The court below found the defendant guilty. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court by the Defendant 1 on the Defendant is too unreasonable.