The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Case progress

A. The following facts are acknowledged according to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial.

(1) As stated in the summary of the charges, the Defendants were indicted by the Seoul District Criminal Court 78 Gohap719 as the charges of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree for the sake of national security and the protection of public order. On January 12, 1979, the said court found the Defendants guilty of both the charges against the Defendants on January 12, 1979, sentenced Defendant A and Defendant B to four years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications, four years of suspension of qualifications, and three years of suspension of qualifications to Defendant C.

(2) The Defendants and public prosecutors appealed to the above judgment as Seoul High Court 79No232, and the above court rejected the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of legal principles on June 20, 1979, but reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and sentenced the Defendants A and B to three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification, three years of suspension of qualifications, and two years of suspension of qualifications to the Defendants C.

(3) The Defendants appealed to the lower court on July 21, 1979, Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant C voluntarily withdrawn their respective appeals on July 31, 1979, and the instant judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

B. On March 24, 2011, the Defendants filed the instant request for reexamination. On July 30, 2013, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial (hereinafter “decision to commence a retrial of this case”) on the instant judgment subject to 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. Accordingly, the instant decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive as is, on the ground that there was no legitimate filing of an appeal within the appeal period.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendants (1) describe the summary of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles.