The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Seized student certificates (No. 6).

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the records of the decision subject to review and the decision to commence a retrial.

A. On May 28, 1976, the Defendant was indicted as Seoul Criminal Court 76 high 171 on the charges stated in the separate sheet. On May 28, 1976, the above court found the Defendant guilty of all the above charges, and sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and suspension of qualifications for the purpose of protecting the national security and public order (hereinafter “Emergency Measure No. 9”) and Article 225 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 195; hereinafter the same) with respect to the above public document, and with respect to the uttering of forged public document, each of the crimes under Articles 29 and 225 of the former Criminal Act was dealt with as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the former Criminal Act, and sentenced to suspension of qualifications for one year and forfeiture.

B. Upon appeal by the defendant, the Seoul High Court reversed the judgment of the court below on September 30, 1976 on the ground that the sentence of the court below was too unreasonable, and sentenced to the suspension of the execution and suspension of qualifications for one year, confiscation and destruction for one year (Seoul High Court Decision 76No. 1398; hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”) and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

(c)

On January 30, 2018, the prosecutor filed a request for a retrial for the benefit of the defendant in accordance with Article 424 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

On May 3, 2018, the Seoul High Court rendered a sentence by treating the crime of violation of Emergency Decree No. 9 and the crime of forging each official document, and the crime of forging forged official document as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the former Criminal Act, and rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the whole of the judgment subject to new trial on the ground that the new trial under Article 420 subparag. 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act was due to the fact that there was a reason for re-adjudication under Article 420 subparag. 9 of the said Act. The decision to commence the new trial became final and conclusive as it

2. The scope of trials of this Court shall be several persons having concurrent relationships.