The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

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

A. The Defendant was indicted on March 24, 1978 as the facts charged as indicated in the Attachment, and the above court found all of the charges guilty on March 24, 1978, and sentenced two years and six months and six months and six months of suspension of qualifications, by applying paragraphs 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 October 27, 1980; hereinafter “former Constitution”).

B. On July 20, 1978, 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 the suspension of the execution of the above imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and one year of suspension of qualification for the defendant.

(Seoul High Court Decision 78No612 delivered on November 28, 1978, on which a final appeal was dismissed and became final and conclusive on November 28, 1978.

(Supreme Court Decision 78Do2203). C.

On November 22, 2017, a prosecutor requested a retrial on November 22, 2017, and this court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on June 26, 2018 on the grounds that there are grounds for retrial under Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial, and the said decision became final and conclusive

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts since the defendant did not have committed a crime as stated in the facts charged of this case, and the sentencing of the court below is too inappropriate.

The sentencing of the court below by the prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

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

(a) Emergency Measure 9 issued on the basis of the Emergency Measure stipulated in Article 53 of the United States Constitution does not meet the requirements for its issuance and goes beyond the limits for purposes;