logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.11.27 2014재노47 (1)
대통령긴급조치제9호위반
Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The defendant is not guilty.

Reasons

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 indicted as the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9, such as the summary of the facts charged, and the above court convicted the Defendant of all the charges on August 18, 1978, and sentenced the Defendant to two years and six months and six years and six months of imprisonment. (2) The Defendant and the public prosecutor appealed against the above judgment as Seoul High Court 78No1309, and the above court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing but reversed the judgment of the lower court on November 30, 1978, and sentenced the Defendant one year and one year of suspension of qualification.

(2) On December 8, 1978, the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive upon the lapse of the period for filing an appeal against the instant judgment subject to a retrial.

B. On August 22, 2014, the Defendant first filed the instant request for retrial. On October 8, 2014, the instant 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. The instant decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive as is.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to Article 53 of the Constitution, which serves as the basis for Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the legal principles, the President may take an urgent measure when determining that there is a need to take prompt measures as there is a serious threat to national security or public security and order. Thus, all crimes stipulated in subparagraph 9 of the Presidential Emergency Decree are established.

arrow