The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the original facts charged, Article 14-4(1) of the former Public Service Ethics Act (amended by Act No. 9402, Feb. 3, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) provides that, among persons liable for registration, a person prescribed by Presidential Decree among persons subject to disclosure of information under Article 10(1) and public officials belonging to the Ministry of Strategy and Finance and public officials belonging to the Financial Services Commission (hereinafter referred to as “persons subject to disclosure”), among the persons liable for registration, shall directly sell or trust in blank or trust in blank, or have interested parties sell or trust in blank, within one month from the date on which he/she exceeds the amount prescribed by Presidential Decree within the scope of between 10,000 won and 50,000 won. Article 24-2 provides that “When a person subject to disclosure, etc. fails to sell or trust in blank his/her shares in violation of Article 14-4(1) or 14-6(2) without justifiable grounds, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment for not

In full view of the language, structure, purport, etc. of the above provisions, Article 24-2 of the former Public Service Ethics Act shall be construed only as a punishment provision in cases where a person subject to disclosure of information does not sell or trust in blank his/her own stocks. It shall also be interpreted as a provision that includes the subject of punishment even in cases where a person subject to disclosure of information does not sell or trust in blank his/her stocks. It shall not be permissible in violation of the principle of no punishment without law because it excessively expandss

In the same purport, the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the facts charged is just, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.