The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the instant case.

A. On August 17, 197, the Jeonju District Court sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of one year, a maximum of one year and six months, and a suspension of qualification for a year on the grounds of a violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) aimed at protecting the national safety and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”).

B. On November 24, 1977, the judgment of the court below was reversed in the case No. 77No379 of Gwangju High Court, for which the defendant and the prosecutor appealed, and the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, suspension of execution for three years and suspension of qualification for one year for the defendant (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”), and the above judgment became final and conclusive without filing a final appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor

C. On February 8, 2013, the Defendant filed the instant request for retrial, and accordingly, this Court rendered a final and conclusive decision on September 26, 2013, as it is, the final and conclusive decision on commencing a retrial.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The declaration of the fight against the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles does not constitute the constituent elements of Emergency Decree No. 9, which is so-called religious confession that the removal of all social systems contrary to the statements made by the Defendant.

(2) The lower court’s sentence imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

3. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, this paper examines ex officio whether the Emergency Measure No. 9 is unconstitutional.

Emergency Decree No. 9 issued on the basis of the Emergency Decree No. 53 of the United States Constitution violates the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people beyond the limits for the purpose without satisfying the requirements for its issuance. Thus, prior to the cancellation or invalidation of Emergency Decree No. 9, it is unconstitutional and invalid as it is in violation of the United States Constitution.