A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one month and suspension of qualifications for a year.

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

1. Case progress

A. On February 26, 1976, the Defendant was indicted with the Jeonju District Court 76 high order 163, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the presidential emergency measures (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) for the protection of national security and public order, and two years for suspension of qualifications and two years for a violation of the anti-public law (hereinafter “instant judgment subject to a retrial”). Accordingly, each of the Defendant and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment subject to a retrial, but all appeals were dismissed on June 15, 1976, and the Defendant appealed, but the judgment subject to a retrial was dismissed on October 12, 1976, and the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

B. On December 27, 2017, a prosecutor filed a petition for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial. On July 9, 2018, the court rendered a request for a new trial on the grounds that the Emergency Measure No. 9 of Emergency Decree No. 9 is null and void from the beginning, and there are grounds for a new trial as stipulated in Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 among the judgment subject to a new trial, and the violation of public law is concurrent with the fact of the violation of Emergency Measure No. 9 of the Attached Form No. 1 of the indictment. Thus, the new trial

2. In an indivisible final and conclusive judgment convicting several criminal facts in the relation of concurrent crimes within the scope of the judgment of this court, where it is deemed that there exist grounds for the request for retrial only for a part of the facts constituting an offense, the judgment in the form of a single sentence is bound to be decided as to the whole of the judgments. 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 formally subject to the judgment, the retrial court cannot reverse that part by re-examination, and thus, it cannot reverse that part. However, the sentencing should be