A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months and suspension of qualifications for one month.

However, the above imprisonment for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Progress of the retrial procedure of this case

A. On November 5, 1976, the Defendant was convicted of the charges charged in the support of the Sungdong branch of the Seoul District Court. On the other hand, the Defendant was sentenced to suspension of qualifications for three years, suspension of qualifications for three years, and suspension of qualifications for a violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the Protection of National Security and Public Order (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) pursuant to Articles 4(1) and 16 of the former Anti-Public Law (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the National Security Act, Act No. 3318, Dec. 31, 1980; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Articles 7 and 1(a) of the “Emergency Decree” (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”), and the Defendant was sentenced to suspension of qualifications for three years and three years for the purpose of protecting national security and public order, and the above judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”). On the other hand, the Defendant’s request for correction was revoked on the ground that the Defendant violated the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 197, supra. 197.

(c)

On December 27, 2017, a prosecutor filed a petition for review of the instant judgment subject to a retrial. On January 9, 2018, this court held that “The Emergency Measure No. 9 violated the fundamental rights of the people, which are guaranteed by the Constitution, by failing to meet the requirements, and by excessively restricting the freedom and rights of the people, thereby infringing on the fundamental rights of the people, which are guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the unconstitutionality is null and void even in light of the current Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which provides for the guarantee of fundamental rights infringed upon, and that the said judgment subject to a retrial has grounds for review as prescribed by Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act.”