The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Case progress

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

(1) The Defendant was charged with violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, as stated in the summary of the charges charged, and the Seoul Criminal Court convicted the Defendant of all the charges on June 13, 1978, and sentenced one year of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for one year.

(2) The Defendant and the prosecutor appealed against the above judgment as Seoul High Court 78No989, and the above court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts on November 24, 1978, but reversed the lower judgment’s assertion of unfair sentencing, and subsequently sentenced the Defendant to two years of suspended execution and suspension of qualification for one year of imprisonment.

(3) On December 2, 1978, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive against the Defendant following the lapse of the period of final appeal.

B. On October 13, 2011, the Defendant first filed the instant request for retrial. On July 30, 2013, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the part of the instant judgment subject to retrial (hereinafter “decision to commence a retrial”) on the ground that “The Presidential Emergency Measure (Presidential Emergency Measure No.9, May 13, 1975) for the protection of national security and public order (Presidential Emergency Measure No.9, hereinafter “Emergency Measure No.9”) was unconstitutional and invalid from the beginning, and thus, there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Accordingly, the instant decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive as is, on the grounds that there was no legitimate filing of an appeal within the appeal period.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts did not have awareness that the instant printed matter might spread a will, but did not know what could have been copied, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.