Article 25 and Article 7 of the Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources are the provisions delegated by Article 48 of the Fisheries Act, and they cannot be the unconstitutional provisions.

Article 25 and Article 7 of the former Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources (Presidential Decree No. 5027, Jun. 11, 70) cannot be the unconstitutional provision as to matters delegated by Article 48 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252, Aug. 1, 90).

Article 48 of the Fisheries Act, Article 25 of the Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources, Article 7 of the Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources

Defendant

Prosecutor

Racing Support, 72 high-ranking 225 decided April 25, 1972 (Non-Standing Appeal)

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu District Court racing.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the above legal principles, no punishment is imposed unless there is a law. The principle of statutoryism, which is summary of fishing, is revealed to the Constitution, and most of the penal laws are established by the law. However, it is no longer possible to carry out the principle of statutory punishment without exception under the Criminal Act. However, even if it is impossible to carry out the principle of statutory punishment without exception under the Acts and subordinate statutes, there is no obstacle to the protection of the rights of the people even if it is on the way, there is no obstacle to the protection of the rights of the people. On the other hand, there is no need to enact a penal law through the Presidential Decree (Article 74 of the Constitution) which is called as a delegation order of 30,000 won or less, and there is no need to establish a comprehensive delegation order under the Act on 10,000 won or more, and there is no violation of the Act on 10,000 won or more, which is a specific provision of the Act on 10,000 won or more.

Therefore, the above provisions on the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources do not go beyond doubt that the delegation scope of delegation under Article 48(1), 2, and 48(3) of the Fisheries Act, which is the mother corporation, is required to faithfully stipulate the scope of delegation under Article 48(1), 2, and 3 of the Fisheries Act, and that delegation of Presidential Decree under Article 48(1) of the Act on the Protection of Marine Resources is an all-inclusive delegation or a blank delegation without any restriction on specific delegation matters as a specific delegation. Thus, the above provisions are not a violation of any provision of the Constitution. However, the court below reversed the judgment below which rejected the prosecutor's prosecution that the crime of the defendant violated Article 7 subparag. 13 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources and acquitted the defendant of the law on the remaining violation of the provisions of Article 48(2) and (3) of the Fisheries Act.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the unanimous assent of all judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Martics (Presiding Justice)