The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

In this case.

A. The Defendant was indicted for a violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the purpose of national security and the protection of public order and the violation of anti-public law by a military-military-military-military-military-military-military-military-military-military mutual-aid 22, and the same court found the Defendant guilty of the charge on April 28, 197, and sentenced the Defendant to one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor and suspension of qualifications, by applying Article 4(1) of the Emergency Decree No. 9, No. 7 and No. 1(a) and Article 4(1) of the Anti-public law.

B. The Defendant appealed. On July 20, 197, the High Military Court Decision of the Republic of Korea: (a) reversed the judgment of the first instance ex officio on the ground of amendments to the indictment on July 20, 197; and (b) applied Article 4(1) of the Antipublic Act to the crimes stated in the separate sheet; (c) on the ground that Article 4(1) of the Antipublic Act applies subparagraph 7 and subparagraph 1(a) to the crimes stated in the separate sheet, and sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence for a period of three years and six months and a suspended sentence for a period of one year and six months (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”).

The defendant appealed to the Supreme Court on December 27, 197, but the final appeal was dismissed on December 27, 197, which became final and conclusive.

(d)

On March 23, 2018, the prosecutor filed a request for a retrial on March 23, 2018, and the Seoul High Court rendered a decision to commence a retrial on May 3, 2018 on the grounds that there was a reason for re-examination under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial, and the decision to commence

2. Where it is recognized that there are grounds for the request for retrial only for a part of the facts constituting an indivisible judgment which found several concurrent crimes in which the scope of adjudication is concurrent crimes and sentenced to a single sentence, the judgment in the form of a single sentence is against the judgment on which one sentence is pronounced, and thus, the decision of commencing retrial is inevitable.