Whether Article 25(1) and Article 31 subparag. 1 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources are invalid in violation of the principle of no punishment without the law and the limitation of delegated legislation (affirmative)

"Restriction or prohibition on fishing vessels" in subparagraph 2 of Article 48 (1) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990) means restriction or prohibition on the number, size, equipment, and fishing methods of fishing vessels in light of the legislative purpose of the above Act and Article 23 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources, which provide for the restriction or prohibition on the restriction or prohibition on fishing vessels and fishing gear. If a fishing vessel is used during the period of engaging in fishing, the above provision that a fishing vessel shall be kept in the fishing vessel and carried in the fishing vessel, and if the fishing vessel is not used during the period of engaging in fishing, it is evident that the restriction or prohibition on fishing gear or fishing vessel is not related to the restriction or prohibition on fishing gear, and there is no other ground for delegation under the Fisheries Act, and thus, Article 25 (1) and Article 31 (1) 1 of the above Decree violates the principle of no punishment without the law without the law of the law of the extension and invalidation of delegation.

Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 75 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 48(1) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252, Aug. 1, 1990); Article 23 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources; Article 25(1) and Article 31 subparag. 1 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 91No227 delivered on May 24, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The facts charged of this case are that "the defendant, as the captain of the vessel and the captain of the happiness, operated the fishery for the purpose of fishery without holding a permit for fishery by the authority at around 15th day of the Doldong-gun, Gyeonggi-do on May 24, 1990, and around 12:00." The prosecutor prosecuted the defendant by applying Article 31 subparagraph 1 and Article 25 (1) of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources.

Article 48(1) of the Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990) provides that "any restriction or prohibition on fishing gear or fishing vessel with respect to fishing gear or fishing vessel may be prescribed by Presidential Decree in order to control, manage, distribute order, and coordinate fisheries" and subparagraph 2 of Article 48 provides that "restriction or prohibition on fishing gear or fishing vessel" means any restriction or prohibition on fishing vessel's number, size, facilities and fishing method, in light of the legislative purpose of the above Act and Article 23 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990) that intends to promote the development and protection of fishery resources and the democratization of fishing industry through the comprehensive use of waters.

Therefore, Article 25 (1) of the Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources provides that "a fishery license certificate, fishery permit certificate, fishery inspection or receipt certificate shall be provided that "where a fishing vessel is used during the period in which the fishing is engaged, it shall be kept in the fishing vessel and carried it in the case where the fishing vessel is not used, a person engaged in the fishery shall carry it in the case where the fishing vessel is not in violation, and it shall be punished under Article 31 (1) 1 of the Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources. It is obvious that the above provision does not relate

In the same purport, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that Article 25(1) and Article 31 subparag. 1 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources expand the scope of punishment unfairly without delegation of the mother law, which violates the principle of no punishment without the law and goes beyond the limit of delegated legislation, and that the facts charged in this case are not a crime, and there is no violation of the law of no punishment without the law or the law of no punishment without the law of no punishment without the law

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)