[도로운송차량법위반][공1980.9.15.(640),13054]
Scope of application of Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act
Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act applies only to the amendment of the statutes in light of reflective consideration that the previous punishment itself is unfair or excessive as a result of the amendment of the ideology that served as the reason for the enactment of the penal law, and where the statutes are amended or amended to cope with the need due to changes in other circumstances, even if the statutes were amended or amended, the violation at the time of the enactment or amendment shall be punished in accordance with the preceding statutes.
Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Busan District Court Decision 79No3620 delivered on November 12, 1979
The appeal is dismissed.
We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.
The provisions of Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act shall apply to cases where the previous punishment itself was unfair due to changes in the legal ideology which served as the reason for the enactment of penal statutes, or where the statutes were amended or amended in light of reflective consideration that the punishment was excessive, and where the statutes were amended or amended in order to cope with special needs at that time due to changes in circumstances, rather than due to changes in the legal ideology, the provisional punishment for violations committed at the time of the enforcement of the preceding statutes was reduced or extinguished, and therefore, even if the statutes were amended or amended, such violations should be punished in light of the penal statutes at the time of the enforcement of the statutes.
In this case, Article 45(2) through (6) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Vehicles Act provides that the period of non-business-type regular inspection and maintenance shall be completed every six months from the date on which the second anniversary of the age of the vehicle shall be completed every six months. Since the amendment of the above Enforcement Rule does not result in the change of the legal ideology, it shall be deemed that the modification of the law to extend the period of the automobile inspection and to respond to the need, not from the change of the legal ideology, but from the change of circumstances, such as the advancement of the automobile manufacturing technology, the development of road conditions, etc.
Therefore, the court below's decision is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles in the original judgment, in accordance with Article 45 (2) of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Transport Vehicles Act at the time of the crime of this case.
The issue is groundless.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Yu Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)