The defendant shall be innocent.

1. On May 2, 1980, the Defendant: (a) carried in a bus belonging to the Sinpo Station B with a 30 or more persons whose name is in secret width on May 22, 1980; (b) carried in a bus belonging to the Sinpo Station B with a 30 strings, and carried the body in an open space, and (c) carried out relief, such as “the release of emergency martial law”; (d) returned to the competent court, C, D, backline, etc. in the Sinpo City until 21:00, thereby harming the peace of a large number of women, and conducted unlawful demonstration at the same time.

2. Determination

A. A series of acts committed by E, etc. in relation to the May 18 Democratization Movement after he/she had been under the military command of the military force on December 12, 1979 constitutes a crime of insurrection under the Military Criminal Act and a crime of destruction of 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).

In light of the timing, motive, purpose, object, means of use, result, etc. of the Defendant’s act indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, the act of the Defendant constitutes a justifiable act prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act for the purpose of protecting the existence of the Constitution and constitutional order, as “an act of preventing or opposing the commission of a crime destroying constitutional order that occurred before or after December 12, 1979 or May 18, 1980.”

3. As such, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, a judgment of not guilty is rendered pursuant to the former part of Article 325