[자동차운수사업법위반][집36(1)형,405;공1988.5.15.(823),732]
Whether re-elections pursuant to Articles 75 and 56 of the Automobile Transport Business Act fall under the case where a fine for negligence is changed to a fine for negligence and a punishment is abolished due to the amendment or repeal of the statutes after the crime
At the time of crime, Articles 75 subparag. 3 and 56(1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Act No. 3513, Dec. 31, 1981) provide for the punishment to be imposed on a fine. At the time of the judgment of the court below, the changed purport that the administrative fine shall be imposed pursuant to Articles 75(1)5 and 56(1) of the said Act (amended by Act No. 3913, Dec. 31, 1986; July 1, 1987) shall be deemed to be an anti-sexual measure from the fact that the previous administrative fine, which is an administrative fine, is unfair under Articles 75(1)5 and 56(1) of the said Act (amended by Act No. 3913, Dec. 31, 1981; Act No. 3513, Dec. 3, 198).
Articles 75 subparag. 3 and 56(1) of the former Automobile Transport Business Act (Act No. 3513, Dec. 31, 1981); Articles 75(1)5 and 56(1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act; Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act
Defendant
Prosecutor
Chuncheon District Court Decision 87No442 delivered on November 19, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
The so-called the defendant's violation of the Automobile Transport Business Act at the time of the crime. The defendant's decision at the time of the crime provided for the punishment of a fine as it falls under subparagraph 3 of Article 75 and Article 56 (1) of the Automobile Transport Business Act (Act No. 3513, Dec. 31, 1981). At the time of the judgment at the time of the judgment at the court below, there is a change to impose an administrative fine under Article 75 (1) 5 and Article 56 (1) of the above Act (Act No. 3913, Jul. 1, 1987; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") to impose an administrative fine under Article 75 (1) 5 and Article 56 (1) of the same Act (amended by Act No. 3913, Dec. 31, 1986; hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). The changed purport is that the previous measure which is subject to punishment is unfair and unfair.
In this regard, the court below is just in making a decision of acquittal on the defendant's violation of the Automobile Transport Business Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the arguments.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)