In the case where a statute was amended to punish a person who fails to appear on the specified date without justifiable grounds, whether it constitutes "when a sentence was repealed due to the repeal of the statute after the crime was committed" under Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (affirmative)

Article 524-8(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) provides that a person who fails to appear on the specified date shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five million won. However, the Civil Execution Act (amended by Act No. 6627 of Jan. 26, 2002) that enters into force on July 1, 2002 (amended by Act No. 6627 of Jan. 26, 200) stipulates that it is unfair to impose immediately punishment on a debtor who fails to comply with his/her request for specification of property having the character as an indirect compulsory means of non-performance of civil liability, instead of the above penal provision, by establishing a special penal detention provision under the Civil Execution Act, which is a special punishment under the Civil Execution Act, and thereby, Article 68(1)1 of the said Act provides that the person shall be punished by detention for not more than 20 days by the court’s ruling.

Article 524-8(1)1 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002); Article 68(1)1 of the Civil Execution Act (amended by Act No. 6627 of Jan. 26, 2002); Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 2001No1264 delivered on April 18, 2002

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding the defendant guilty of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act against the defendant, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence. The ground of appeal

2. Ex officio, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by applying Article 524-8(1)1 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002) to the facts constituting a crime in violation of the Civil Procedure Act as indicated in the judgment.

However, Article 524-8(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act provides that a person who fails to appear on the specified date shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding five million won. However, the Civil Execution Act (amended by Act No. 6627 of Jan. 26, 2002) which was enforced on July 1, 2002, which was effective since July 26, 2002, stipulates that a person who fails to faithfully comply with a request for explanation of property having the character as an indirect compulsory means for non-performance of civil liability shall be punished immediately in consideration of anti-discrimination that it is unreasonable to impose a punishment on a debtor, instead of the above penal provision, by establishing a special penal provision under the Civil Execution Act, which is a punishment under the Civil Execution Act instead of the above penal provision, and shall be punished by detention within 20 days by the court’s decision under Article 68(1)1 of the same Act. In applying the previous penal provision to any act prior to the enforcement of the Act, anywhere there is an explicit provision.

Therefore, by applying Article 524-8(1)1 of the former Civil Procedure Act, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered on the facts constituting a violation of the Civil Procedure Act, which the court below found guilty. Since the court below deemed the above facts constituting a crime and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and sentenced one punishment, the court below'

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is entirely reversed in accordance with Article 383 subparagraph 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act and the proviso of Article 384 of the same Act, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)