beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and suspension of qualifications for each year.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the national security and public order.
Reasons
The progress of the case and the scope of the trial
1. Progress of this case
A. On December 23, 1977, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for two years as stated in the attached charge of violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the protection of national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”), violation of the former Anti-Public Law (amended by Act No. 3318 of Dec. 31, 1980), violation of the former Anti-Public Law (amended by Act No. 3318 of Dec. 31, 1980), assault injury, and violation of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 4294 of Dec. 31, 1990) at the Gwangju District Court, which was sentenced to a conviction of two years of suspension of qualifications and two years of suspension of qualifications (77Da164). The Prosecutor and the Defendant appealed. The Gwangju High Court dismissed both the Prosecutor and the Defendant’s appeal on June 1, 197 (7No. 41) and the judgment subject to retrial became final and conclusive on June 1, 1978.
(c)
On January 5, 2018, a prosecutor requested a retrial on January 5, 2018, and this court rendered a retrial on March 20, 2018, on the ground that there was a ground for retrial prescribed in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 among the objects
In light of the decision to commence the review, the above decision became final and conclusive at that time.
2. In an indivisible final and conclusive judgment that recognized several concurrent crimes of the scope of the trial as guilty and sentenced one of the offenses, where it is deemed that there exist grounds for the request for retrial only for a part of the offenses, the judgment shall be rendered formally and the whole of the judgments shall be rendered. However, inasmuch as the effect of the decision to commence retrial as to the facts constituting an offense for which there are no grounds for retrial under the nature of the system of retrial, which is an emergency remedy, is limited to the inclusion of that part in the object of the trial formally, the retrial court shall not reverse the conviction by re-examination, and thus, it shall be limited to the extent necessary for sentencing.