대통령긴급조치제9호위반
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
I. The progress and scope of the instant case
1. According to the progress records of the case, the following facts can be acknowledged.
A. In the Daegu District Court Decision 76Ra265 delivered on November 30, 1976, the court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of violating the Presidential Emergency Decree for the national security and the protection of public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”), the violation of public law, and the violation of the Act on the Control of Smuggling, and sentenced the Defendant to five years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”).
However, each not guilty verdict was made on the violation of the National Security Act against the defendant and the violation of the Act on the Control of damp Medicines. B. The defendant and the prosecutor appealed against the defendant and the prosecutor with Daegu High Court 77Nom19, but the appellate court dismissed all the appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor on March 31, 197.
Since then, the defendant and the prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court 77Do1360 on July 12, 197, the Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor on July 12, 197, which became final and conclusive on the same day.
(c)
On the other hand, the Daegu District Court, at the beginning of January 79, 1980, revoked on December 8, 1979, No. 9 of Emergency Decree No. 9 applied to the defendant for a correction of sentence No. 233, which was the judgment subject to a retrial, and decided again on the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9, on the ground that the execution of the sentence is exempted under Article 1(3) of the Criminal Act and Article 336(1) of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 3282, Dec. 18, 1980), on the ground that the execution of the sentence is exempted under Article 1(3) of the Criminal Act and Article 336(3) of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 3282, Dec. 18, 1980).
(d)
On December 29, 2017, a prosecutor asserts that “The Emergency Measure No. 9 is unconstitutional, and thus, the judgment subject to a retrial, based on which a conviction was rendered, has grounds for retrial prescribed in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act” and pursuant to Article 424 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.