The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Attached 2. Of the facts charged in the instant case

According to the progress records of this case, the following facts are recognized.

The Defendant was charged with the charges of the attached Table 1 (guilty part) and the charges of the attached Table 2 (Crime No. 2) in the form of each indictment, and the charges of the attached Table 2 (Crime No. 78 Gohap95). On July 14, 1978, the above court found the Defendant guilty of all the above charges against the Defendant on July 14, 1978, and sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for two years and six months, and suspension of qualifications for the purpose of protecting national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) by applying Article 4(1) main sentence of Article 4(1) of the former half of the Public Works Act (repealed by Act No. 3318, Dec. 31, 1980); Articles 7 and 9(1)(a) of the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”).

The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed against this. On November 13, 1978, this Court reversed the judgment of the court below on the grounds that the Defendant’s punishment against the Defendant was too unfair, and thus, reversed the judgment of the court below, and again sentenced the Defendant to one year and six months of imprisonment and suspension of qualification (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). While the Defendant was on February 27, 1979, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on December 29, 2017 (Supreme Court Decision 78Do3070). On October 2, 2018, the Prosecutor requested a retrial on the part of the judgment subject to a retrial of violation of Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act among the judgment subject to a retrial, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on the grounds that the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive on October 2, 2018, and all of the judgment subject to a retrial constituted concurrent crimes under Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment, suspension of qualifications three years) of the lower court is too unreasonable for the accused. The prosecutor is too unfair for the accused.