A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one month.

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. Progress of the retrial procedure of this case

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

A. On February 26, 1976, Busan District Court convicted the Defendant of the violation of the Presidential Emergency Measure No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) and the charges of violation of the anti-public law, and sentenced one year of imprisonment and suspension of qualification for one year (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”). B. The prosecutor appealed on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the Daegu High Court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal on June 17, 1976, and the prosecutor waived the appeal and thereby the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive.

(c)

On December 29, 2017, a prosecutor filed the instant petition for retrial on the grounds that there are grounds for retrial stipulated in Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act and Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the Emergency Decree No. 9, which is applied to the Defendant, loses its effect by the Constitutional Court’s decision of unconstitutionality and the declaration of invalidation of the Supreme Court’s decision of invalidation.

(d)

On January 16, 2018, when the court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on January 16, 2018, it held that the instant judgment subject to a new trial is entirely subject to a decision to commence a new trial on the grounds that the Emergency Decree No. 9 is null and void since it is unconstitutional from the beginning, 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 that the violation

After that, the decision to commence a new trial became final and conclusive.

2. In an indivisible final and conclusive judgment which found several criminal facts in the relation of concurrent crimes within the scope of the judgment of this court guilty, where it is recognized that there are grounds for request for retrial only for a part of the facts constituting a crime among them, the judgment for which one sentence is pronounced formally is rendered, and thus, the decision to commence retrial has to be made on the whole judgment.