[1] The principle of interpreting penal provisions

[2] The scope of real estate that can be transferred with the permission of the Minister of Culture and Sports under Article 6 (1) 2 of the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act

[1] The interpretation of a penal provision shall be strict, and the interpretation of a penal provision shall not be permitted because it is against the principle of no punishment without law to excessively expand or analogically interpret the meaning of a penal provision against the defendant.

[2] Under Article 15 subparagraph 1 of the former Traditional Temple Preservation Act (amended by Act No. 5320 of Apr. 10, 1997), and Article 6 (1) subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15493 of Oct. 2, 1997), the term “real estate as prescribed by the Presidential Decree” means a real estate owned by the relevant Buddhist temple and its ownership within the boundaries of the traditional temple, but Article 7 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Preservation Act provides that the term “real estate within the boundary of the traditional temple shall be punished if the chief of the traditional temple transfers the real estate as prescribed by the Presidential Decree without the permission of the Minister of Culture and Sports.” Article 7 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Preservation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15493 of Oct. 2, 197) provides that the term “real estate within the boundary of the traditional temple or the amended traditional temple’s’s ownership.”

[1] Article 12 (1) of the Constitution / [2] Article 6 (1) 2 and Article 15 subparagraph 1 of the former Traditional Temple Preservation Act (amended by Act No. 5320 of Apr. 10, 1997), Article 7 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Korean Traditional Temple Preservation Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 15493 of Oct. 2, 1997)

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Do1428 delivered on October 13, 1992 (Gong1992, 3190), Supreme Court Decision 92Do3126 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1115), Supreme Court Decision 98Do1719 delivered on July 9, 199 (Gong199Ha, 169Ha, 169), Supreme Court Decision 2001Do5410 Delivered on February 8, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 724)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 2000No845 delivered on December 20, 2001

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

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).

According to Article 15 subparagraph 1 and Article 6 (1) 2 of the former Traditional Temple Preservation Act (amended by Act No. 5320 of Apr. 10, 1997), the chief of the traditional temple shall be punished if he transfers the real estate as prescribed by the Presidential Decree without the permission of the Minister of Culture and Sports. Article 7 (2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15493 of Oct. 2, 1997) and Article 6 (1) 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act provide that the term “real estate within the boundary of the traditional temple shall be owned by the relevant Buddhist Buddhist Temple.” Article 7 (2) of the amended Enforcement Decree of the Korean Traditional Buddhist Temple Preservation Act (amended by the Presidential Decree No. 15493 of Oct. 2, 199) shall be interpreted as "real estate within the boundary of the traditional temple," and it shall be interpreted as "real estate within the scope of the traditional temple."

In the same purport, the court below is justified in finding the defendant not guilty on the ground that the "Korean Buddhist Temples and Korean Buddhist Temples who are the registrant of the real estate of this case" refers to the order, and since it does not refer to the temple, the real estate of this case cannot be deemed as the real estate owned by the relevant temple under Article 7 (2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant disposed of the real estate of this case. Therefore, the court below is justified in finding the defendant not guilty, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the Preservation of Traditional Buddhist Temples Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)