1. The meaning of grain for the purpose of controlling the prices of grain purchased from the government or government agencies as stipulated in Article 7-3 (3) of the Grain Management Act;

2. The meaning of the grain business operator as prescribed in Article 17 (1) of the same Act and the notification of the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry of November 9, 1977.

3. Whether the notice given by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry under Article 17 of the same Act and the notice exceeds the limit of delegated legislation;

1. For the purpose of controlling grain to be purchased directly by the Government or a government agency as stipulated in Article 7-3 (3) of the Grain Management Act, the term "grains for controlling the prices of grain that have been purchased directly by the Government or an agency of the Government" means grain for controlling the prices of which have been purchased directly by the Government or an agency of the Government, and it shall not be applicable even to the Government grain which has been released for controlling the prices of grain;

2. Article 17 (1) of the same Act and Article 2960 (b) of the Notice of 9 November 19, 197 by the Director of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. A grain dealer who has purchased the Government grain taken out for the purpose of saving grain prices prescribed in the order with respect to grain buyers refers only to a seller who has purchased grain for the purpose of saving grain prices directly from the government or an agency acting for the government. Thus, if the Defendant purchased grain from the seller and sold it to a non-actual buyer, it does not violate the above notice by the Director of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

3. The notification of Article 17 of the same Act and the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry does not exceed the limit of delegated legislation, so it is not unconstitutional.

Article 7-3(3) of the Grain Management Act and Article 17 of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s notice No. 2960(b) of November 9, 197

Supreme Court Decision 69Do1094 Delivered on January 26, 1971

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor (Defendant 1)

Attorney Park Jong-young (Law No. 500,000)

Daegu District Court Decision 79No1598 delivered on November 9, 1979

The part of the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendants shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 1 is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to Article 7-3 (3) of the Grain Management Act with respect to the prosecutor's appeal, the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries may determine the maximum difference between the purchase price and the sales price of the grain purchased by the grain dealer from the government or government agencies, if deemed necessary for the sale of grain for the purpose of grain for the purpose of saving the price of the grain purchased from the government or government agencies. Accordingly, the term "grain for the purpose of saving the price of grain purchased from the government or government agencies" means grain purchased by the grain dealer directly from the government or government agencies other than the government or government agencies can not be said to be subject to the regulation of the above Act, even if it was purchased from the government agency or government agencies other than the government or government agencies.

This interpretation should be strictly interpreted in light of the fact that such a provision is not only a matter of the law but also a matter of restriction on business activities permitted to general grain business operators, and at the same time penal provisions for such violation.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not possible to say that there is a misunderstanding of legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no appeal against Defendant 1

2. As to the Defendants’ appeal

A. Article 17 of the Grain Management Act is not deemed to have exceeded the limit of delegated legislation, or even if so, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries’s announcement exceeds the scope of delegation of the mother’s law. Thus, the above provision or public notice or the judgment below based on such provision or public notice cannot be deemed as unconstitutional (see Supreme Court Decision 69Do1094 delivered on January 26, 1971).

Therefore, the theory of unconstitutionality is without merit.

(b) If the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries deems it necessary for controlling the demand and supply of grain and establishing order in distribution, he may order a grain dealer to take the following measures within the limit of not causing disadvantages to farmers who are grain producers, as prescribed by the Presidential Decree, with fixing the period and area:

1. The restriction on persons other than consumers, 2. Restriction on volume trading, 3. Commencement and upper limit of sales price, etc. Accordingly, according to the order issued by the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry No. 2960 of Nov. 9, 197, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry (1) pursuant to Article 15-3 of the Grain Management Act and Article 3-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the person other than those who obtained permission for the grain trading business cannot engage in the grain trading business.

(2) A grain dealer shall post and sell the sales price by kind and quantity of grains to be sold at the store.

(3) A grain dealer who has purchased grain for the purpose of controlling the prices of grain shall sell it only to the consumers, and shall not separate and sell mixable grain nor use it at any place other than his own store.

(4) A grain dealer and a processor shall not re-draw, or re-draw, grain released by the Government or otherwise distributed grain.

(5) A grain dealer must perform the transaction of weight.

A grain dealer who has purchased government grain taken out for the purpose of grain assistance as referred to in paragraph (3) above shall be construed as a dealer who has purchased grain directly from the Government or government agencies for grain assistance.

If why is, the grain for the purpose of grain saving is sold by the grain dealer who purchased it from the government or from the government agencies, because it would lose the character of grain for the purpose of grain saving.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant 1 guilty on the grounds that Defendant 1 purchased, etc., grain from Dongin, etc. and sold 85,320kiggggs to non-actual consumers several times in Daegu City, 17-si, Kim Dong-dong, and the government grain allocated to three other persons for the purpose of grain processing, and the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of violating the order of the above Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles of the above Grain Management Act, and therefore, the ground for appeal by the defendant on this point is justified.

C. In light of the records, the court below's finding of the facts against the defendant 2 and 3 is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing such as the theory of litigation in the process of its fact-finding. Therefore, there is no question about this issue.

3. Ex officio determination

According to the judgment of the court below, the defendants' act of selling grain to non-actual consumers multiple times (the above explanation that the sale by defendant 1 does not constitute a crime) is deemed as a crime of actual concurrent crimes, and the records show that the sale is repeated with a single and continuous intention. Thus, the above judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the number of crimes, which affected the application of law.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court below, the part of the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendants is reversed and remanded to the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 1 is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)

Justices Park Young-chul-chul-chul, who are unable to sign and seal due to his retirement.