The case holding that the act cannot be deemed to constitute a crime by the amendment of the law.

The amendment of the mid-term Management Act, its Enforcement Rule, the Road Traffic Act, etc. to allow operation of dump trucks with a first-class license under the Road Traffic Act is not an amendment to the legal ideology, but an amendment to procedural matters for administrative convenience or for the convenience of obtaining licenses. Therefore, even if the defendant acquired the first-class large license, the act of operating dump trucks with a second-class license under the circumstances at the time of the enforcement of the Act before the amendment should be punished in accordance with the penal law at the time of the act.

Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 19 of the Mid-Term Management Act; Article 38 of the Enforcement Rule of the Mid-Term Management Act;

Seoul High Court Decision 77Do1280 delivered on February 28, 1978 (Article 326(31)1023 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 326(31)102 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 11802 house 26°484Gong10681 delivered on July 22, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 79Do2953 delivered on July 22, 1980 (Abstract II Article 20(1)125 of the Criminal Act, Article 640-13054)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court (84 High Court Decision 1810)

Acquittal of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,000.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, he/she shall be confined in a workhouse for a period converted into one day.

The provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered.

The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case by the prosecutor was that all those who want to operate dump trucks with the revision of Article 19(1) of the Mid-Term Management Act on December 31, 1983 should obtain a license for a mid-term pilot from the Minister of Construction and Transportation. While it was changed to obtain a first class license under the Road Traffic Act for the mid-term pilot under the Enforcement Rule of the Mid-Term Management Act, but the defendant operated dump trucks of this case on June 13, 1984, which are the mid-term pilot, it was clearly before the above revision was enforced, and it was clearly clear that the type of mid-term pilot would be subject to the above revision in the Enforcement Rule of the Mid-Term Management Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Act without a license for a mid-term pilot, the court below obtained a first class license to operate dump trucks with the revision of the Mid-Term Management Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and it constitutes an unlawful judgment of the court below to conclude that it constitutes a first class of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, a person who intends to operate a dump truck at its original stage was uniformly required to obtain a license for a mid-term pilot from the Minister of Construction and Transportation in accordance with Article 19 of the previous mid-term Management Act, but on December 31, 1983, it was replaced by a license under the Road Traffic Act with respect to mid-term truck prescribed by the Enforcement Rule of the mid-term Management Act, but the above revised Act was enforced from July 1, 1984. Thus, it was obvious that the defendant operated a dump truck of this case, which he was a mid-term driver, was unable to operate without a mid-term pilot license under the previous Act before June 13, 1984. However, according to Article 19 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act, the defendant's dump truck of this case was found to have not been operated without a mid-term pilot license under the previous Act, but it was found that the defendant's dump truck of this case was a large type of driver's license under Article 13 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Act.

However, the provisions of Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act or Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall apply to cases where the previous punishment itself was unfair or excessive due to changes in the legal ideology which served as the reason for the enactment of the penal law, in consideration of reflective circumstances that there was excessive punishment, and as such, in cases where the Acts and subordinate statutes are amended or amended to cope with special needs at the time due to changes in circumstances other than those resulting from changes in the legal ideology, there is no reason to reduce or extinguish punishment for violations committed at the time of the enforcement of the preceding Acts and subordinate statutes, and even if the Acts and subordinate statutes are amended or amended, such violations shall be punished in light of the penal laws and regulations at the time of the act (see Supreme Court Decisions 77Do1280, Feb. 28, 1978; 77Do1280, Feb. 28, 1978). In light of the purpose of the midterm Road Management Act and the Road Traffic Act, it cannot be viewed that licenses or ex officio trucks have been obtained a license or ex officio.

Therefore, the court below rendered a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the act of non-licensed mid-term assistance of the defendant committed under the circumstances at the time of the enforcement of the preceding Act and subordinate statutes should be punished in light of the penal law at the time of the act, notwithstanding the fact that the punishment was abolished due to the repeal of the statutes after the crime, and thus, the court below reversed the acquittal part of the judgment below and rendered a new judgment following the pleading pursuant to Article 3

On June 13, 1984, at around 17:40 on June 13, 1984, the defendant operated a dump truck (vehicle number omitted) dump truck from the old side of the Gunpool Elementary School located in the Gunpo-si to the front side of the Gunpo-si.

1. In the protocol of the original judgment, the statement consistent with the facts set forth in the original judgment

1. Statement consistent with the judgment among the examination records of suspects against the accused in the preparation of handling affairs by a prosecutor and a judicial police officer;

1. Statement that corresponds to the facts in the judgment of the judicial police officer among the statement of the non-indicted person in charge of administrative affairs

1. Records consistent with the judgment in the records of verification of affairs conducted by judicial police officers; and

The so-called "the judgment of the defendant" falls under the main sentence of Article 8, Article 1 (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 34 subparagraph 7, and 19 of the Mid-Term Management Act (Act No. 3462 of Dec. 17, 1981), Article 34 subparagraph 7, and Article 19 of the Criminal Act, and if the defendant does not pay the fine, the defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 100,00 within the scope of the amount, and if the defendant does not pay the fine, he shall be punished by a fine of KRW 70,00 in accordance with Article 70 and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act while attracting the defendant to a workhouse for a period of one day converted by the amount of

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Cho Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)