The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is whether the Defendant, at around 20:00 on March 16, 1976, at the house located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, D's house located in Chungcheongnam-gun, D's house located in the area where there are ten visitors, such as E Residential F, in which of the death of the city.

In doing so, there is a law that does not make a revolution to another person on the subject that became the President.

In order to make a revolution, the new father and the new father attempted to distort the will, i.e., "if there is any change in the system, it will be put in," and thus, distorted the fact.

2. On September 6, 1976, this court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months and suspension of qualifications for the purpose of national security and the protection of public order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) pursuant to Articles 7 and 1(a) of the Emergency Measure No. 9, and one year and six months.

The Prosecutor and the Defendant appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 76No. 1839, but on November 23, 1976, the final judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered and became final and conclusive as they were (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). Since the Emergency Measure No. 9 on October 20, 2017 is unconstitutional and void, the Prosecutor filed a petition for retrial pursuant to Article 424 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the grounds that there are grounds for retrial in the judgment subject to a retrial on which a conviction was rendered based on the judgment subject to a retrial.

This Court, on January 11, 2018, deems that a request for retrial is well-grounded pursuant to Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act.

On the other hand, the review commencement decision was decided and the above decision became final and conclusive.

3. The Emergency Measure No. 9 issued based on the Emergency Measure stipulated in Article 53 of the former Constitution of the Republic of Korea (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980; hereinafter “former Constitution”) violates the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people by failing to meet the necessary requirements.