Article 16 of the Criminal Act: Purport of Provisions

Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of his own act shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding that his act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes. It does not mean simple case of a site of law, but generally cases of a crime, but it is a mistake that his act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes in his special circumstances, and if there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding, he shall not be punishable.

Article 16 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294Do208 delivered on October 5, 1961 (Gong129) 92Do245 delivered on April 24, 1992 (Gong192, 1772) 92Do1267 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong192,3187)

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 93No5777 delivered on January 14, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of misunderstanding that his act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable reason to believe that the misunderstanding does not constitute a crime. It does not mean a simple site of law, but it generally constitute a crime, but in his special circumstances, he knows that it does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes, and there is a justifiable reason to mislead misunderstanding (see Supreme Court Decision 4294No208 delivered on October 5, 1961).

For the same reasons as the theory in this case, the defendant was unaware of the provisions of Article 7-2 of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 4381 of May 31, 191) that the defendant shall undergo an interim inspection on the construction of stoves, etc., so this constitutes a mere legal site. Since the defendant did not know that the defendant does not constitute a crime that is permitted by the law and therefore, it does not constitute a crime that is permitted by the law, it does not interfere with the establishment of the crime. On the other hand, even if the defendant who is the owner of the building of this case has given a contract to the construction company which is an expert and given a direct direction, supervision, or supervision of the construction of the new building of this case, and even if the defendant was not the owner of the building of this case, he cannot be exempted from punishment if

For the same reason, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion, and there is no reason to discuss since there is no error as to the theory of lawsuit.

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

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)