A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six 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).

I. The progress and scope of the instant case

1. In the case of Daegu District Court Decision 75 Gohap277 delivered on January 7, 1976, the court found the defendant guilty of the Presidential Emergency Decree (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the national security and the protection of public order, and sentenced the defendant to four years of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for the violation of the Antipublic Law (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). (B) Accordingly, the defendant and the prosecutor appealed to the Daegu High Court 76No158 delivered on May 21, 1976, and the appellate court dismissed all the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor on May 21, 1976.

Since then, the defendant and the prosecutor appealed to the Supreme Court 76Do1814 on August 24, 1976, the Supreme Court dismissed all the appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor on August 24, 1976, which became final and conclusive on the same day.

(c)

On December 29, 2017, the prosecutor filed a petition for retrial pursuant to Article 424 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, asserting that “The Emergency Measure No. 9 is null and void, and there are grounds for retrial prescribed in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a retrial on the basis of which a conviction was rendered.”

Accordingly, this court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on May 15, 2018, and rendered a judgment for a new trial on the grounds that “(i) Emergency Measure No. 9 is null and void from the beginning, and there are grounds for a new trial prescribed in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9, among the judgment subject to a new trial, and ② the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9, which is the crime subject to a new trial, and the violation of public law, are concurrent crimes, and the judgment for a new trial is entirely subject to a decision for a new trial, recognizing the conviction of

“The Court determined that “....”

The above decision was finalized as it is.

2. In an indivisible final and conclusive judgment which convicted one of the several concurrent crimes in the relationship of the scope of trial by this court, some of the crimes are to be committed.