A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

(e).

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

(1) On December 13, 197, this Court stated the Defendant’s “a summary of the facts charged” of “not guilty under the violation of the Presidential Emergency Decree for the protection of national security and public order.”

(2) The phrase “criminal facts” under the injury is the same as the phrase “criminal facts.”

The charge was found guilty, and the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) was sentenced to two years of imprisonment and suspension of qualifications for the defendant, applying Article 257(1)(a) of the Criminal Act and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act.

(hereinafter “The Judgment on Review”). The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed respectively to the Daegu High Court 78No13, but the above appellate court dismissed all the appeals by the Defendant and the Prosecutor on March 16, 1978, and the Defendant appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed them on May 23, 1978 (Supreme Court Decision 78Do867), and the judgment on review became final and conclusive.

On July 3, 2018, a prosecutor rendered a request for retrial in accordance with Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act, on the grounds that there are grounds for retrial in a judgment that declared a conviction on the grounds that the Emergency Decree No.9 is unconstitutional and invalid.

On January 21, 2019, the Court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the whole of the judgment subject to a new trial on the grounds that the request for a new trial is reasonable pursuant to Article 47(4) of the Constitutional Court Act regarding the violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 among the judgment subject to a new trial.

2. In an indivisible final and conclusive judgment convicting several criminal facts which are in the relationship of concurrent crimes within the scope of trial by this court, where it is deemed that there exist grounds for request for retrial only for a part of such facts, the judgment in which one sentence is pronounced.