The guilty part against the defendant shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment of three years and six months and fine of 800,000.

A. On December 21, 2015, the Defendant was convicted of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (including Acceptance of Materials, etc.) and the Act on the Regulation and Punishment of Concealment of Criminal Proceeds on September 22, 2016, and was sentenced to a verdict of innocence on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (hereinafter “Aggravated Punishment, etc.”) in support of Sungnam branch of Suwon branch of Suwon branch of Suwon branch of Suwon branch of September 22, 2016.

B. The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed against the above judgment. On February 3, 2017, the appellate court reversed the guilty part of the judgment of the lower court regarding the Defendant, and rendered a judgment dismissing the Prosecutor’s appeal on three years and six months of imprisonment and a fine of KRW 800,000,000 per day of conversion into custody in the workhouse, and the amount of KRW 1.6 million per day of innocence (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”) (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”) and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on February 11, 2017.

(c)

The Constitutional Court of Korea on October 26, 2017 applies the amended provisions of Article 70(2) of the Criminal Act to the case where a public prosecution is instituted for the first time after this Act enters into force.

Article 2(1) of the Addenda (Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014) of the Act, “,” decided that Article 2(1) violates the Constitution against the principle of influence in the Criminal Act (Supreme Court Decision 2015HunBa239, 2016HunBa17, Oct. 6, 2017) (Supreme Court Decision 2015HunBa239, 2017).

Accordingly, Article 2 (1) of the Addenda was retroactively invalidated in accordance with Article 75 (6) and Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act.

(d)

Defendant 1 had grounds for review in the judgment subject to a retrial based on the above decision of the Constitutional Court

On September 14, 2018, this Court accepted the above argument and decided to commence the retrial.

As seen earlier, a new trial is made on the ground that the applicable law regarding the detention of the defendant at the prison was unconstitutional.