옥외광고물등의관리와옥외광고산업진흥에관한법률위반
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) misunderstanding the legal principles on outdoor advertising water, etc. management (amended by Act No. 13726, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same) of the former Outdoor Advertising Water Management Act (amended by Act No. 13726, Jan. 6, 2016; hereinafter the same) where advertising materials, etc. shall not be displayed or installed are “bridges”. Since the Defendant installed a banner on the building of the steel structure located in the bridge, not the bridge, the former Outdoor Advertising Water Management Act does not apply, and construing “the building of the bridge bridge” as “bridges,” the meaning of the provision on the bridge is excessively expanded or analogical interpretation to the disadvantage of the Defendant, and is contrary to the principle of statutoryism for crimes.
(2) The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the scope of application of the former Act on the Management of Outdoor Advertising, Etc., was dismissed on the ground that he led to the strike on April 29, 1985 while entering and working in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), but was recognized as a person whose honor was restored by the Committee for Deliberation on Restoration of and Compensation to Persons Related to Democratization Movement on June 22, 2009, and the said Committee recommended the restoration of the honor to D on July 14, 2009.
However, D did not take any measure without disregarding it, and the defendant posted a banner as part of reinstatement activities.
Therefore, applying Article 21 of the Constitution, Article 32 of the Constitution, and Article 33 of the Constitution, which unfairly infringes on the freedom of legitimate expression of opinion based on the Defendant’s act (right to work) and violates Article 2-2 of the former Management of Outdoor Advertising Products, etc. Act.
B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. We examine the misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding the subject matter of the former Outdoor Advertising Management Act.