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 records of the decision for review and the decision for commencing a retrial.

A. On July 12, 197, the Seoul Criminal District Court recognized the charges as indicated in the attached Form against the Defendant on July 12, 197, and sentenced one year of imprisonment and suspension of qualification by applying Article 53 (7) and (1) (a) of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) issued pursuant to Article 53 of the former Constitution of the Republic of Korea (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980; hereinafter “former Constitution”).

(Supreme Court 77Gohap317). (b)

On October 21, 1977, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal respectively, and sentenced the defendant to a one-year imprisonment and a two-year suspension of qualification to the above imprisonment.

(Seoul High Court Decision 77No1242 delivered on January 18, 1978). The defendant filed a final appeal against this decision, but the final appeal was dismissed on January 18, 1978, which became final and conclusive.

C. A prosecutor filed a request for retrial on November 27, 2017, and this court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on June 26, 2018 on the grounds that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial, and the said decision became final and conclusive as is.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the facts charged in this case were not specified, the dismissal of prosecution shall be dismissed, and since the defendant did not commit the crime as stated in the facts charged in this case, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, and the sentencing of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

A. The Supreme Court, whether Emergency Measure No. 9 is unconstitutional, issued on the basis of Article 53 of the United States Constitution.