대통령긴급조치제9호위반등
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
According to the progress records of the case, the following facts are recognized.
On September 23, 1976, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment of conviction for one year and one-year suspension of qualifications for violating the Presidential Emergency Decree (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the protection of national security and public order, and for a violation of the Resident Registration Act (hereinafter “Emergency Decree”). The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial, but the Daegu High Court handed down a judgment dismissing both the Defendant and the Prosecutor’s appeal on January 27, 197, and became final and conclusive (76 No. 1274), and the period of appeal became final and conclusive.
On December 29, 2017, the Prosecutor filed the instant petition for retrial on the ground that there are grounds for retrial stipulated in Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act and Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since Emergency Decree No. 9, which applies to the Defendant subject to a judgment subject to a retrial, loses its effect due to the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality and declaration of invalidation of the Supreme Court
On April 2, 2018, there are grounds for retrial stipulated in Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act and Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the part of a violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 among the judgment subject to a retrial.
A decision to commence a new trial on the whole decision subject to a new trial was made and the decision to commence the new trial became final and conclusive.
Where it is deemed that there are grounds for request for retrial only for some of the facts constituting an indivisible crime in a final and conclusive judgment convicting of several concurrent crimes related to the scope of adjudication, the decision to commence retrial has to be made as to the whole of the judgment, since one sentence is against the judgment which has been pronounced formally, but the decision to commence retrial has to be made as to the facts constituting an offense for which the nature of the retrial system, which does not have grounds for retrial, is limited to the inclusion of that part in the judgment formally.