반공법위반등
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, suspension of qualifications for a year, and fine of two hundred thousand won.
The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.
The progress of the case and the scope of the trial
1. Progress of this case
A. On February 2, 1978, the Defendant was convicted of imprisonment with prison labor for two years, suspension of qualifications for two years, and fine of 200,000 won for a violation of the former Antipublic Law (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Security Act, Act No. 3318, Dec. 31, 1980; hereinafter the same shall apply), violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”), violation of the Act on the Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes (amended by Act No. 3333, Dec. 31, 1980; hereinafter the same shall apply) at the Gwangju District Court, and thereafter, (77; 192; hereinafter the Defendant thereafter, the Defendant appealed from the appellate court (Seoul High Court No. 78No1010, Jun. 22, 197; hereinafter the judgment subject to a retrial).
(c)
On January 5, 2018, a prosecutor requested a retrial on January 5, 2018, and this court rendered a retrial on January 30, 2018, on the ground that there is a ground for retrial prescribed in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 among the objects
In light of the decision to commence the review, the above decision became final and conclusive at that time.
2. Where it is deemed that there are grounds for request for retrial only for some of the facts constituting an indivisible crime in a final and conclusive judgment convicting several concurrent crimes in which the scope of the trial is concurrent crimes, the decision to commence retrial has to be made on the whole of the judgment. However, with respect to the facts constituting an offense for which there are no grounds for retrial under the nature of the system of retrial, which is an emergency remedy, the effect of the decision to commence retrial is to include the relevant part in the object of the trial formally, the retrial court cannot reverse that part by re-examination and reversal of that part. However, since the new sentencing should be conducted on that part, it is necessary for sentencing.