Whether the defendant's act constitutes a mistake in law because he/she was unaware of permission under the Building Act (negative)

In cases where punishment is not imposed pursuant to Article 16 of the Criminal Code, it does not mean a simple case of a site of law, but it is generally an act which becomes a crime, but in one’s own special case, it is not punishable if there is a justifiable reason in recognizing that his act is not a crime. Thus, the circumstance that the defendant had knowledge that his act was subject to permission under the Building Act is merely a site of law, and in particular, it is not a case where the defendant actively perceived that his act is not a crime that is permitted under the Act and subordinate statutes, and it is not due to a mistake of law.

Article 16 of the Criminal Act, the main sentence of Article 5(1) of the Building Act, and Article 48 of the same Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Do285 delivered on February 12, 1980 (Gong1980, 12636) 85Do25 delivered on April 9, 1985 (Gong1985, 764) 90Do1126 delivered on October 30, 1990 (Gong190, 2483)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91No1210 delivered on May 31, 1991

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The defendant's use of the building of this case, which is a neighborhood living facility without permission from the head of Si/Gun, to a church does not become subject to punishment since 1987, but it is obvious that the defendant was subject to punishment as acts violating Articles 54 (1), 5 (1) (main sentence), and 48 of the Building Act at the time of September 1, 1985 when commencing the use of the building of this case. Further, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that his acts are not subject to punishment only when there are justifiable grounds for mistake. It does not mean a simple site of law, but it does not mean that the act of this case constitutes a general crime but it is not punishable if there are justifiable grounds for recognizing that the act of this case was not a crime permitted by the Acts and subordinate statutes. Thus, the circumstance that the defendant knew that the act of this case is subject to permission under the Building Act is merely a site of the Act, and it does not constitute a mistake, especially a crime permitted by the Acts and subordinate statutes, and it does not constitute a mistake.

2. In this case where the defendant is sentenced to a fine, the grounds for unfair sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. The arguments are groundless.

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)