The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of the decision for review and the decision for commencing a retrial.

A. On November 13, 1975, the original branch of the Chuncheon District Court recognized the charges as stated in the attached Form against the Defendant, and sentenced three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications by applying paragraphs (7) and (1)(a) of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the National Security and the Protection of Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) issued pursuant to Article 53 of the former Constitution of the Republic of Korea (wholly amended by Act No. 9 of Oct. 27, 1980; hereinafter “former Constitution”).

(Law Firm 75 Gohap35). (b)

The defendant and the prosecutor filed an appeal respectively. On March 25, 1976, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the sentence of the court below was more severe, and sentenced to one year of imprisonment and two years of suspension of the execution of the above imprisonment (Seoul High Court Decision 75No1561, the judgment subject to a retrial) and around that time, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

C. A prosecutor filed a request for retrial on October 27, 2017, and this court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on June 26, 2018 on the grounds that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to retrial, and the said decision became final and conclusive as is.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s sentencing is too inappropriate.

B. The lower court’s sentencing is too uncomfortable.

3. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal for ex officio determination.

A. The Supreme Court held that Emergency Measure No. 9 is unconstitutional, since Emergency Measure No. 9, which was issued based on Article 53 of the U.S. Constitution, violated the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people beyond the limits for its purpose without satisfying the requirements for triggering the Emergency Measure, it is unconstitutional and invalid, and further, guarantees fundamental rights infringed by Emergency Measure No. 9.