Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act and Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act with regard to the amendment of Acts and subordinate statutes on economic control following a change in the economic situation, not

Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act or Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be interpreted to apply to cases where the previous punishment itself was unfair due to changes in the legal ideology, which was the reason for the enactment of the penal law, or where the amendment or repeal of the statutes was excessive due to reflective consideration that there was an excessive punishment. In such cases, not by changes in the legal ideology, but by only the amendment or repeal of the statutes to cope with special needs at that time due to changes in economic conditions, there is no reason to reduce or extinguish punishment for violations committed under the economic conditions at the time of the enforcement of the former statutes. Thus, even after the amendment or repeal of the statutes, such violations shall be punished in light of the penal law at the time

B. The disturbance was designated as a material under Article 4-2 (1) of the Provisional Measure for Price Adjustment (Abolition) by Ordinance No. 932 of the Ministry of Strategy and Finance, and the disturbance was deleted from the above designation under Ordinance No. 1026, Oct. 29, 1962 after the crime. The disturbance was merely caused by the change of economic circumstances that the control of the maximum price was deleted from the controlled material, and if it was not caused by the change of the legal ideology, and if the punishment of the violation was to be terminated as a result of the deletion, the purpose of the above Act cannot be attained, and thus, it cannot be said that it constitutes the abolition of the legislation after the crime, and thus, it cannot be said that there was an error in applying the statutes that were acquitted pursuant to subparagraph 4 of this Article.

Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act; Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Prosecutor General;

Seoul District Court Decision 62Da16992 delivered on November 15, 1962

the original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Seoul District Court.

According to the original judgment based on the prosecutor's summary grounds of appeal, the court below recognized the whole facts charged, and recognized the fact that the disturbance was deleted in the above designation under the Decree No. 1026, Oct. 29, 1962 after the crime, and acquitted the defendant pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, on the ground that it constitutes the abolition of the statutes after the crime.

However, the provisions of Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act or Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be interpreted to apply to cases where the previous punishment itself was unfair due to the change of the legal ideology which was the reason for the enactment of the penal law, or where the previous punishment itself was amended or amended in light of reflective consideration that the punishment was excessive. In such cases, not by the change of the legal ideology, but by the change of the economic situation at the time, where the amendment or amendment of the law was made in order to cope with the special needs at that time, there is no reason to reduce or extinguish punishment for the acts committed under the economic situation at the time, and even if the law was amended or amended, it shall be punished in light of the penal law at the time of the act. In this case, even if the law was revised or amended, the disturbance was deleted from the maximum control object, and it is not due to the change of economic situation, and if the punishment of the acts as seen in this case is extinguished, the purpose of the Act on Price Adjustment cannot be applied.

Therefore, according to Articles 391 and 397 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-Jak, the maximum leapbal leapbal leaps