기타의죄
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the instant case.
A. The Defendant was indicted on each of the charges listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the charges of this case”) that he violated the Presidential Emergency Decree for the public law and national security and the protection of public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”). On May 14, 1976, the Chuncheon District Court convicted the Defendant of all of the charges, and sentenced the Defendant to five years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for the Defendant by applying the antipublic law and Emergency Decree No. 9 (No. 75 High Court Decision 99, 76 High Court Decision 24 (Joint)), hereinafter “the lower court’s judgment”). (b) The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed against the lower judgment on October 14, 1976, and reversed all of the charges of this case on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and sentenced the Defendant to suspension of qualifications for two years and two years of imprisonment for the first instance court (hereinafter “Seoul High Court”) by applying the antipublic law and Emergency Decree No. 974, May 14, 1976.
The Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 76Do3958 on January 11, 197, but the final appeal was dismissed on January 11, 197, which became final and conclusive on the same day.
(d)
On December 29, 2017, a prosecutor requested a retrial on December 29, 2017. On April 4, 2018, this Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on the whole of the judgment subject to a retrial on the grounds that there are grounds for a retrial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 among the judgment subject to a retrial. The said decision became final
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) 1 was under the influence of alcohol as at the time stated in paragraph (1) of the instant facts charged, and thus was physically and mentally deprived.
2) The Defendant did not commit any act described in Article 2 of the instant facts charged.
B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence of the lower court (five years of imprisonment and five years of suspension of qualifications) is too uneasy and unreasonable.
3. The scope of the adjudication shall be concurrent crimes.