대통령긴급조치제9호위반
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.
2. The sentence shall be suspended against the defendant;
3...
The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the instant case.
A. The Defendant, together with co-defendant C, was indicted by the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the sake of national security and the protection of public order, and the violation of anti-public law. The Defendant was indicted by the Presidential Council No. 22 in 1977 of the Gun General Council of the Gun General Council of the Gun General Assembly of the Army Headquarters. On April 28, 1977, the said Gun Council convicted the Defendant of all the charges charged against the Defendant and sentenced to two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification.
B. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed to the High Military Court Decision 301 in 77 years of the Army Law Meeting. On July 20, 1977, the High Military Court Decision 77: (a) reversed the judgment of the lower court in accordance with the amendment to a bill of amendment as stated in the attached indictment by the military prosecutor; and (b) found the Defendant guilty of all the modified facts against the Defendant; (c) Articles 4(1) and 16 of the Anti-Public Law; (d) Article 11 of the National Security Act; and (e) Articles 9(7) and 11 of the Emergency Decree No. 9 (Attached charges No. 2 through 6) with respect to the fact that the Defendant violated the Emergency Decree No. 9 (Attached charges No. 2 and 1(a) (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”) and imposed two years of imprisonment with prison labor and suspension of qualification (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”).
On December 27, 1977, the final appeal was dismissed, and the final judgment for final judgment became final and conclusive.
(d)
On March 23, 2018, a prosecutor filed a request for a retrial on the part of the crime of violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 among the judgment subject to a retrial. On April 9, 2018, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the whole of the judgment subject to a retrial on the grounds that the judgment subject to a retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act has grounds for retrial, and the judgment subject to a retrial was rendered on the grounds that all concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act were convicted of both the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 and the crime of violation of the Anti-Public Law,
The scope of the adjudication of this Court is concurrent crimes.