A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

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

On December 8, 1975, this Court stated the Defendant’s “criminal facts” under the obstruction of performance of official duties as stated in ① the part concerning the crime committed under the obstruction of performance of official duties.

(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.

Recognizing the Defendant guilty of all the charges, and applying Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(7) and 13(1)(a) of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”), the Defendant sentenced two years of imprisonment, suspension of qualifications, and suspension of execution to three years.

(hereinafter “The Judgment on Review”). The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed respectively to the Daegu High Court 76No13, but the appellate court dismissed all the appeals by the Defendant and the Prosecutor on April 15, 1976, and the Defendant appealed, but the judgment subject to review became final and conclusive on April 17, 1976 by waiver of the right to appeal.

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, the Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the whole of the judgment subject to a new trial on the grounds that the request for a new trial is reasonable pursuant to Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act regarding the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 among the judgment subject to a new trial.

2. In an indivisible final and conclusive judgment convicting several criminal facts which are in the relationship of concurrent crimes within the scope of judgment in this Court, where it is deemed that there exist grounds for request for retrial only for a part of the facts constituting a crime, the judgment against which one sentence is pronounced formally.