The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one month.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for one year from the date of the final judgment.

1. According to the records, the following facts are acknowledged.

A. The Defendant was indicted for violating the public law and the presidential emergency measures for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “emergency measures No. 9”). On September 1, 1978, the Seoul Criminal District Court convicted the Defendant of the charges and sentenced the Defendant to five years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification.

(Seoul Criminal Court 78 Gohap244 case). (b)

Upon appeal by the defendant, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment below on January 26, 1979 and sentenced the defendant to three years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification (Seoul High Court 78No1293 case, hereinafter "the judgment on retrial") (However, the judgment on judgment subject to retrial contains a statement that there was a decision of correction on December 28, 1979) and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 24, 1979 by the Supreme Court's judgment.

C. On March 24, 2011, the Defendant was arrested and detained without a warrant by investigators at the time, and the above actions by investigators constitute illegal arrest, confinement, and confinement as stipulated in Article 124 of the Criminal Act. ② Emergency No. 9 is clear that it is unconstitutional, and thus, the judgment subject to retrial provided that there exists grounds for retrial in the judgment subject to retrial.

On July 18, 2013, this Court decided that there was a ground for retrial under Article 420 subparagraph 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act for a violation of Emergency Measure No. 9, since Emergency Measure No. 9 was null and void from the beginning.

However, in the case of violation of anti-public law, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant was arrested and detained without a warrant by investigators, and there is no ground for retrial for violation of Emergency Measure No. 9, which is a concurrent crime. Thus, the judgment subject to retrial of this case was wholly determined to be subject to the decision to commence a retrial.

After that, there is no legitimate filing of an appeal within the appeal period.