1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are asserted.

1. Basic facts

A. On the end of January 1978, Plaintiff A was detained on the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree (Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 of May 13, 1975) aimed at protecting the national security and public order.

After that, the plaintiff A was prosecuted as Seoul District Criminal Court 78 Gohap79, and the facts charged against the plaintiff A are as follows.

- A - The defendant - The plaintiff

A. The plaintiff A et al.

Around 16:00 on October 4, 197, K, the president of the former J company, in the F tea located in the E-U in Gwangju metropolitan City, G, Dong H, Dong H, Dong I, etc., L, the president of the former J company, was L, a e-mail, in the e-mail period, wasteing foreign currency to Saudi Arabia, and making an external map that is prohibited by the national law of that country, and L, the government of Korea, made it an objection to the Republic of Korea. Since L, while having been aware of such fact, L was able to leave K from the president of the J company with the knowledge of this fact, it was the date on which K made a will by speaking that his father, the former wife of the National Assembly member of the N Political Party, was doing so by doing so with M and autonomous or extra politics.

“”

B. On May 31, 1978, the Seoul Criminal Court rendered a judgment that found the Plaintiff guilty of the above facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the following: “The Plaintiff’s statements that correspond to some of the above facts charged, the witness G, and H’s respective statements that correspond to the above facts charged, the statement that corresponds to the above facts charged, the statement that corresponds to the above facts charged, the list that corresponds to the prosecutor’s investigation, the G, I, and H in the protocol of examination of the Plaintiff, and the statement that corresponds to the above facts charged,” and sentenced the Plaintiff A to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months and one year and six months of suspension of qualification (hereinafter

C. As to the judgment of the court below of this case, the plaintiff A and his defense counsel appealed on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts, unspecified facts charged, unreasonable sentencing, etc., and the appellate court convicted the above facts charged by considering the evidence adopted by the court of this case on November 17, 1978.