A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the progress records of the instant case.

On December 15, 1978, this Court stated the Defendant’s “criminal facts” as “criminal facts” under each property damage and injury.

(2) The main points of “not guilty part” under the Presidential Emergency Measures to protect the national security and public order are as stated in the summary of the facts charged.

The charges were found guilty, and the Presidential Emergency Measures (hereinafter “Emergency Measures No. 9”) No. 7 and No. 1(a) were applied to both Article 366, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 366, Article 257(7), and Article 7(1)(a) of the National Security and Public Order were sentenced to

(hereinafter “The Judgment on Review”). The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed respectively to the Daegu High Court 79No23, but the appellate court dismissed all the appeals by the Defendant and the Prosecutor on February 15, 1979, and the Defendant appealed against this. However, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on April 24, 1979, which became final and conclusive.

On February 8, 1980, when the Emergency Measure No.9 was rescinded on December 8, 1979, the court rendered a decision to correct the judgment subject to a retrial by applying Articles 1(3) and 39(3) of the Criminal Act on the ground that “when the act does not constitute a crime by the amendment of the law after the judgment became final and conclusive,” and that the execution of sentence is exempted, the court rendered a decision to revise the judgment subject to a retrial by applying Articles 1(3) and 39(3) of the Criminal Act only for property damage and bodily injury.

On July 3, 2018, a prosecutor rendered a request for retrial in accordance with Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act, on the grounds that there are grounds for retrial in a judgment that declared a conviction on the grounds that the Emergency Decree No.9 is unconstitutional and invalid.

On January 21, 2019, this Court held that the Emergency Decree No. 9 was violated.