The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of several criminal facts in concurrent crimes, and rendered a single sentence of “private punishment,” which constitutes a violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree among the judgment subject to a retrial, and the violation of the National Security Act, and in the case of the conspiracy for insurrection, there exist grounds for retrial stipulated in Article 420 subparag. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but in the case of the violation of the anti-public law (the so-called “marization”), the lower court did not have any grounds for retrial, but ordered a new trial as to the entire judgment subject to a retrial on the ground that

Since then, the lower court sentenced not guilty of the violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree, the violation of the National Security Act, and the conspiracy of insurrection among the facts charged in the instant case, and suspended the sentence regarding the violation of the Anti-Public Law.

(F) On the other hand, the part of the judgment of the court below, which was found guilty, was appealed by the defendant, and the prosecutor did not appeal the part of the acquittal, so the part of the judgment of the court below was separated and finalized as it is.

Therefore, the scope of the judgment of the court is limited to the guilty part of the judgment of the court below (the violation of the antipublic law).

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal asserted that, since the Defendant received investigation into violation of the public law after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal, he/she was subject to harsh treatment, including advisers, such as an investigator, following the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal, there is a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparag. 7 and Article 422 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(3) In a case where a new trial is commenced on March 29, 2013, and a new trial is commenced on the whole of the facts constituting a crime, even in a case where a final and conclusive judgment that recognized several facts constituting a concurrent crime and rendered a single sentence, and deemed that there exist grounds for the request for a new trial on some facts constituting a crime, the new review is required to determine whether the facts constituting a crime

Therefore, on the different premise.