Of the facts charged in the instant case.

A. On January 16, 1976, the Defendant was convicted of the charges charged in the judgment of the Jeonju District Court 75 Gohap 71, the judgment was rendered five years of suspension of execution, and the judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”) on the grounds that Article 4(1) of the former Anti-Public Act (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Security Act, Act No. 3318, Dec. 31, 1980; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 9(7) and Article 1(a) of the former Emergency Decree (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the purpose of protecting national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) were sentenced to the judgment subject to a retrial for violation of the Anti-Public Act and the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 3 and suspension of qualification for protecting national security and public order, and the judgment was rendered final and conclusive on December 26, 2017.

The above decision was finalized as it is.

2. In an indivisible final and conclusive judgment convicting several criminal facts in the relationship of concurrent crimes within the scope of the judgment of this court, where it is deemed that there exist grounds for request for retrial only for a part of the facts constituting an offense, one of the judgments has been pronounced formally, and the decision to commence retrial has to be made on the whole of the judgments. However, as for the facts constituting an offense for which the reason for retrial does not exist under the nature of the system of retrial, which is an emergency remedy, the effect of the decision to commence retrial is to include the relevant part in the object of the judgment formally, the retrial court cannot reverse that part by re-examineing it