The case holding that the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 8(1)(a) constitutes a distorted dissemination

If two drivers, such as the other party's driving number, etc. of a conversation, have taken place in the same train, it is deemed that the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9(2)(a) distort the prescribed facts.

Emergency Measure No. 9, Paragraph 1, 1, and 7

Supreme Court Decision 76Do876 delivered on March 11, 1976, 76Do3905 Delivered on February 22, 1977

Defendant

Attorney Kim Dong-dong et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 78No612 delivered on July 20, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 4 are examined together (the defendant did not submit the grounds of appeal within the prescribed period).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court of first instance recognized that the defendant made a speech as stated in its holding, and recognized the fact that the post-satisfy that the post-satisfy in the process of carrying out the post-satisfy was frying and distort the fact by satisfying such wills at a long amount, and that the defendant distorted the fact by satisfying such will, and applied the Emergency Measure Nos. 9-7 and 1(a) to the act that distorted such facts. Thus, in light of the records of the process of cooking the evidence that the court below recognized the above facts, it was just in light of the records, and there was no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, nor by incomplete deliberation or lack of reason in the above judgment, and according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and records, the person who is at a situation where the defendant can hear the speech within the next judgment, as above, has no error in addition to the above first judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)