Examining the contents and structure of the marriage brokerage business Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act in light of the relevant legal principles, inasmuch as the time of providing personal information delegated by Presidential Decree pursuant to Article 10-2(4) of the Marriage Brokers Business Act may be sufficiently predicted that “the time of providing personal information” will be at least transferred to the south of a user and the other party, it cannot be said that the period exceeds the limit of delegated legislation by deviating from the scope delegated by Article 3-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Marriage Brokers Business Act.

1. As to the assertion that the limitation of delegated legislation was exceeded

A. It is not only impossible to provide for all laws and regulations related to criminal punishment in a formal meaning without exception, but also inappropriate. Accordingly, the delegation legislation is permitted only in cases where there is an urgent need or inevitable circumstance that makes it difficult to determine in advance by law, and in terms of the elements of punishment, the delegation legislation is not in accordance with the principle of no punishment without the law. Such delegation legislation is allowed under the premise that the kind, limit, and width of punishment are clearly defined in the aspect of the elements of punishment. Such delegation legislation is not contrary to the principle of no punishment without the law. It is possible when there is an individual delegation that specifically sets a specific scope in the law or upper level order. The specific scope of delegation must be able to predict the outline of the contents and scope that can be stipulated in the delegation order from the relevant law or upper level order. In such cases, the determination with only one delegation provision should not be made, but shall also be made with the overall system and purpose of the delegation provision, the purpose, the relevant delegation provision, and its form and structure, and each of the relevant regulations and structure.

B. Article 26(2)4 of the former Act on the Management of Marriage Brokerage Business (amended by Act No. 14700, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter “Marriage Business Act”) provides that “Any person who fails to provide personal information in violation of Article 10-2(1) shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 20 million won.” Article 10-2(1) provides that “Any international marriage broker shall obtain personal information, such as marriage experience, health status, occupation, and criminal history, from a user who has entered into a contract and the other party to marriage brokerage, and shall provide the other party with personal information (including evidential documents) in writing after obtaining certification from a notary public of the relevant country.” Article 10-2(4) provides that “The time and procedure for providing personal information under paragraph (1) and methods of proving such information shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree.” Article 3-2(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the Marriage Business Act shall provide the other party’s consent to the international marriage brokerage business and the other party’s written provision.”

C. Examining the contents and structure of the marriage brokerage business Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the period of providing personal information delegated by the Presidential Decree pursuant to Article 10-2(4) of the Marriage Brokers Business Act may be sufficiently predicted that the “time of providing personal information” would be at least a transfer to a user and the other party, and thus, the instant provision may not be deemed to have exceeded the bounds of delegated legislation by deviating from the scope delegated by Article 10-2(4) of the Marriage Brokers Business Act. The specific reasons are as follows.

1) Article 10-2(4) of the Marriage Brokers Act explicitly delegates the timing of providing personal information of international marriage brokers to Presidential Decree. The timing of providing personal information may vary depending on the changing times, economic and cultural changes or changes in perception of international marriage. Considering the operational status of the international marriage brokerage business, damage cases of users, etc., and procedures for providing personal information, it is difficult to uniformly determine the timing in detail in law.

2) The obligation to provide personal information of international marriage brokers under Article 10-2(1) of the Marriage Brokers Business Act was introduced to minimize damage caused by lack of information and lack of mutual understanding between the users and the other parties so that a sound international marriage culture can be established.

3) In light of the characteristics of the international marriage brokerage process, which is bound to depend solely on the information provided by the international marriage broker because it is impossible for a user to obtain information on the other party personally, the practice of international marriage through an international marriage broker and the situation of serious damage caused thereby, etc., in determining whether to grant international marriage, it is necessary to ensure the reliability of international marriage by making the time of provision of personal information, which is an important judgment data, in advance from the stage of selecting the other party as “transfer to the south of the user and the other party” to the maximum extent possible.

4) Article 10-2(4) of the Marriage Brokerage Business Act provides that an international marriage broker is a principal and several international marriage brokers. If the average international marriage broker including the defendant is an international marriage broker, it can be sufficiently predicted that the time of providing personal information will be at least the time of transfer to the user and the other party.

D. In the same purport, the lower court determined that the instant provision did not deviate from the scope delegated under Article 10-2(4) of the Marriage Brokers Act. Such determination by the lower court was based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the limitation of delegated legislation, contrary to what is alleged in the

2. As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing shall be allowed. Therefore, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentence is too unreasonable is not

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)