The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant, who is engaged in agriculture, driven a freight truck belonging to B around 18:00 on May 22, 1980, she was carrying the D, E, F, G, H, I, I, and J, with the Defendant’s instructions, and along with them, “K released” and “elimination of emergency martial law” perform political relief, such as “K released.” and “elimination of emergency martial law.” The Defendant was engaged in any demonstration by putting in his/her hand, while carrying out any political relief, she was carrying out a day

(a) F, D, in front of the Magyeong-gu Magyeong-gu Magdong-gu Magdong-gu Magdong-gu Magdong-gu, P, and C, Defendant E, G, L, J, I, H et al., each of the items entered in the above new Magdong-gu, damage 15 copies of the new Magdong-gu and the wall Magdong-gu;

B. At around 22:50 on the same day, he/she entered a hole for management of N on the ground of the office building located in Pyeongtaek-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun M, and takes place an amount equivalent to KRW 8,000 at the market price, such as tobacco, rice, and bean, and threatens each item of the numberless cargo drivers who were infinites, who were infinites, in which they were holding E, and threatened by intimidation, such as having them pay the above food instead.

2. Determination

A. A series of acts committed byO, etc. in relation to the 5.18 Democratization Movement after he/she was maliciously under the military command on December 12, 1979 constitutes a crime of insurrection under the Military Criminal Act and a crime of destroying constitutional order as a crime of insurrection under the Criminal Act.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Do376 delivered on April 17, 1997). On the other hand, whether an act constitutes “act related to May 18 Democratization” under Article 4(1) of the Special Act on the 5.18 Democratization Movement, etc. or “act preventing or opposing the act of destroying constitutional order that occurred before or after May 18, 1980” should be reasonably determined by comprehensively taking into account the time, motive, purpose and object of the act, means of use, result, etc.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1239, Jul. 13, 2001).

The defendant's act stated in the facts charged of this case is time, motive, purpose, object, and object.