A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

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

On November 24, 1975, the Court stated the Defendant’s “a summary of the charge” of “not guilty” under the Presidential Emergency Decree in violation of national security and public order protection.

(2) In violation of the public law, the term “criminal facts” in the part concerning the crime is the same.

Recognizing the Defendant guilty of both the facts charged and applying paragraphs 7 and 1(a) of the Presidential Emergency Decree (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) for the protection of national security and public order, and Article 4(1) of the former Anti-Public Law (amended by Act No. 3318, Dec. 31, 1980; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Defendant sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment with prison labor for one year, suspension of qualifications for one year, and suspension of execution for two years.

(hereinafter referred to as “the subject decision for review”). The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed respectively to the Daegu High Court 75No945, but the appellate court dismissed all the appeals of the Defendant and the Prosecutor on March 25, 1976, and the subject decision for 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 judgment in this Court, where it is deemed that there exist grounds for request for retrial only for a part of the facts constituting a crime, the judgment against which one sentence is pronounced formally.