beta
Text
The judgment below
The conviction part is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the violation of the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents due to the appointment of partnership officers without a general meeting resolution, the principle of clarity, which is derived from the principle of no punishment without law, refers to what acts the law intends to punish, what can be predicted by anyone, and which clearly provides the elements of a crime so that anyone can decide his act.
However, it is not necessary to define all elements of a punishment law as a simple descriptive concept by clarifying the elements of a punishment law. Even if a person with a sound common sense and legal sentiment uses the concept which requires the complementary interpretation of judges because of a somewhat broad range of interpretation, if the person with a sound common sense and legal sentiment provide that he can know the protected legal interests of the punishment law, acts prohibited, and the type and degree of the punishment, the clarity of the punishment law is not contrary.
In addition, the issue of which legal norm is clear may be determined depending on whether the legal norm gives predictability by giving fair notice to the persons who can understand the meaning of the law, whether the legal norm prevents the institutions that interpret and enforce the law from arbitrary interpretation and enforcement, and in other words, whether the predictability and exclusion of arbitrary enforcement is secured.
Furthermore, the meaning of the legal norm depends on not only the language and text, but also on whether the legal norm violates the principle of clarity or not, it can obtain the interpretation standard that can reasonably understand its meaning by the above interpretation method. In addition, the meaning of the legal norm is concrete by the interpretation method that comprehensively takes into account the legislative purpose, legislative intent, legislative history, and systematic structure of the legal norm.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do920 Decided May 11, 2006).