A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three months.

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

(e).

1. Case progress

A. On September 23, 1976, the Defendant was indicted by Jeonju District Court 76 Gohap 109, and this court was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) and one year and six months of suspension of qualifications, and one year and six months of suspension of qualifications for a violation of the Forestry Act (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). While each appeal was lodged against the judgment subject to a retrial, the Defendant and the public prosecutor dismissed all appeals on February 24, 197, and even though the Defendant was on the part of the Defendant, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on May 24, 1977.

B. On February 19, 1980, the Defendant filed a correction claim with Jeonju District Court 80 seconds37, and on February 19, 1980, the court below exempted the Defendant from the execution of punishment for a violation of the Emergency Measure No. 9, among punishment against the Defendant in the judgment subject to a retrial, and suspended the execution of the above punishment for a period of two years from the date on which the original judgment became final and conclusive, on the remainder of the violation of the Forestry Act.

“The decision of this case” was made (hereinafter “the decision of this case”). C.

On December 27, 2017, a prosecutor filed a motion for a new trial on a judgment subject to a new trial. This court rendered a request on July 18, 2018, which held that the Emergency Measure No. 9 was null and void from the beginning on July 18, 2018, and thus, there is a ground for a new trial as prescribed by Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act

The decision to commence a new trial was made on the whole of the original judgment, and the decision to commence the new trial became final and conclusive as is.

2. In an indivisible final and conclusive judgment which found several criminal facts in the relationship of concurrent crimes within the scope of judgment by this court to be guilty, where it is deemed that there exist grounds for request for retrial only for a part of the facts constituting the crime, the judgment with respect to which one sentence is pronounced shall be rendered, and thus, the decision to commence retrial shall be made on the whole judgment.