[2] Whether a natural monument subject to a violation of Article 89(1)2 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act is included (negative)

[2] Article 89(1)2 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 5719, Jan. 29, 199) provides that a person who alters the current state of a State-designated or provisionally designated cultural heritage or who affects its management and preservation without permission shall be punished. Article 20 subparag. 4 of the same Act provides that "any act that requires permission among acts involving State-designated cultural heritage, which may alter the current state of a State-designated cultural heritage (including its protective facilities and protection zone) or affect its preservation," and Article 20 subparag. 4 of the amended Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 5719, Jan. 29, 199) provides that "any act subject to permission shall be changed to the current state of a State-designated cultural heritage (including any act of sampling and stuffing a natural monument), or any act that may affect its preservation, shall be construed as "any act subject to permission," and Article 81(3)1 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act shall be construed as "any act newly designated or amended as a natural monument."

The interpretation of a penal provision must be strict, and the interpretation of a penal provision in the direction unfavorable to the defendant is not permitted because it is against the principle of no punishment without the law (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do1719 delivered on July 9, 199).

Article 89(1)2 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 5719 of Jan. 29, 199) provides that a person who alters the current state of a State-designated or provisionally designated cultural heritage or has an impact on its management and preservation shall be punished, without permission. Article 20 subparag. 4 of the same Act provides that an act which requires permission from among acts concerning State-designated cultural heritage shall be an act that may alter the current state of a State-designated cultural heritage (including its protective facilities and protection zone) or affect its preservation, and Article 20 subparag. 4 of the amended Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Act No. 5719 of Jan. 29, 199) provides that an act subject to permission shall be construed as “an act that alters the current state of a State-designated cultural heritage (including the act of sampling and stuffing it among protective facilities and protection zones and natural monuments) or a natural monument that may affect its preservation, and Article 81(3)1 of the same Act provides that the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act shall be newly amended and amended.

In the same purport, the court below's decision is justified in finding that the death of this case to the defendants cannot be deemed as a natural monument which is the object of the violation of Article 89 (1) 2 of the former Protection of Cultural Properties Act, and therefore the mere delivery to stuff the death of this case shall not be deemed as a change of the present state of designated cultural properties or an act affecting its management and preservation without permission under the above Article, and it shall not be deemed as a violation of the above Act, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the interpretation of the former Protection of Cultural Properties Act, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

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

Justices Lee Jae-hoon (Presiding Justice)