However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Progress of this case

A. On September 2, 2015, the Defendant, who became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) and a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on September 10, 2015 (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). (b) The Constitutional Court’s decision on unconstitutionality of the Constitutional Court was amended by Act No. 7891, Sept. 24, 2015 (amended by Act No. 7891, Mar. 24, 2006; 2014; 3.5.4; 4.4. The part of the judgment subject to a retrial was retroactively invalidated under Article 260 (1) (Article 260 of the Criminal Act); 38(1) of the Act (amended by Act No. 12896, Dec. 30, 2014). 2014).

(c)

On June 7, 2017, the Defendant rendered a request for a retrial against the instant judgment subject to a retrial at this court. On June 29, 2017, this court rendered a decision to review the instant judgment subject to a retrial on the ground that the instant judgment subject to a retrial had been subject to a review under Article 47(3) and (4) of the Constitutional Court Act, and the subsequent decision to commence a retrial became final and conclusive.

2. Where it is deemed that there are grounds for a request for retrial only for a part of the facts constituting an indivisible judgment which acknowledges the conviction of one of the several crimes which constitute concurrent crimes within the scope of the adjudication, the judgment in the form of a single sentence is against the judgment against which one sentence is pronounced, and thus, the decision to commence a retrial is inevitable.

However, this is the case.