대통령긴급조치제9호위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
one resident registration certificate seized (No. 6).
1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the instant case.
A. The Defendant was indicted by the Seoul Criminal Court 76 High 479 on the charges stated in the attached Form. On September 24, 1976, the said court convicted the Defendant of the foregoing charges, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for two years and suspension of qualifications by applying the Presidential Emergency Measures (hereinafter “Emergency Measures No. 9”) No. 7, (2), (1), and (d) (the violation of Emergency Measures No. 9), No. 9, No. 7, (2), and (1) A, and (d) of the Emergency Measures Act, Article 32 of the Criminal Act (the aiding and abetting a violation of No. 9 of the Emergency Measures Act), Article 225 of the Criminal Act (the fact of aiding and abetting a violation of the Emergency Measures No. 9), and Article 225 of the Criminal Act (the fact of Article 25 of the Official Documents).
B. The Defendant appealed against this and appealed. On February 4, 1977, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the sentencing of the court below was unfair due to the lack of sentencing, and reversed the judgment of the court below, which found the Defendant guilty of the above charges, and sentenced the Defendant to one year of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualification by applying the above Acts and subordinate statutes (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”).
On February 4, 1977, the defendant renounced a final appeal and the decision subject to a final judgment became final and conclusive as it is.
(d)
Since the Emergency Measure No. 9 of March 30, 2018 is unconstitutional, a prosecutor’s judgment subject to a final judgment that declared a conviction on the grounds of such unconstitutionality has grounds for retrial prescribed in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
In accordance with Article 424 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court filed a petition for review.
E. This court rendered a decision to re-examine the entire judgment subject to a retrial on July 6, 2018 on the ground that a single sentence was sentenced in the judgment subject to a retrial on the grounds that there was concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, even though only the facts constituting an offense subject to a retrial and aiding and abetting a violation of Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, among the facts constituting an offense subject to a judgment subject to a retrial, the said decision became final and conclusive with the limit of the filing period of the appeal.
2...