The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

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

A. On October 28, 197, the Defendant was sentenced to the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the protection of national security and public order, 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor, and 4 years of suspension of qualification for all the facts charged as stated in the attached Table on violation of public law (7 high 521). The Defendant appealed against the above judgment by asserting mistake of facts and unfair sentencing. On March 16, 1978, this Court reversed the judgment of the court below by accepting only the Defendant’s unfair assertion of sentencing while maintaining the lower court’s conviction, and sentenced 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment with prison labor and 1 year and 6 months of suspension of qualification for one year and 1 year and 6 months of suspension of qualification (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”).

Although the Defendant appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial, the Supreme Court rendered a ruling dismissing the appeal on May 23, 1978 (78Do 881), the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

(d)

The Prosecutor’s Emergency Measure No. 9 of March 23, 2018 is unconstitutional, and thus, the judgment subject to a final judgment that declared a conviction on the grounds of such unconstitutionality has grounds for retrial prescribed in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In accordance with Article 424 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the court filed a petition for review.

E. On July 4, 2018, the instant court accepted the prosecutor’s assertion, and rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the whole of the judgment subject to a new trial, recognizing both the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 and the violation of the Anti-Public Law, which are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and convicted the Defendant of the violation of the Emergency Decree No. 9

2. The defendant's defense counsel explicitly withdraws his/her assertion of mistake in facts during the grounds of appeal on the first trial date of the first trial of the court below.

On the other hand, a final and conclusive judgment that found several concurrent crimes guilty shall be limited to a part of the crimes.