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.

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

(1) On February 21, 1978, this Court stated the Defendant’s “a summary of the charge” of “not guilty part” under the Presidential Emergency Measure for the Protection of National Security and Public Order.

(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 the Presidential Emergency Decree No. 9 (hereinafter “Emergency Decree No. 9”) No. 1(a) and Article 4(1) of the former Antipublic Act (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 and suspension of qualification for one year.

(hereinafter “Subject Decision on Review”). The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealed respectively to the Daegu High Court 78No273, but the appellate court dismissed all the appeals by the Defendant and the Prosecutor on July 27, 1978, and the Defendant appealed, but the Supreme Court dismissed them on October 10, 1978 (Supreme Court Decision 78Do2182), and the judgment subject to 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 in the relationship of a concurrent crime within the scope of judgment of this court, it shall be deemed that there is a reason for request for retrial only for a part of such criminal facts.