Article 16 of the Criminal Act

Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that his act of misunderstanding that his act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable if there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding. This means that it does not merely refer to a case of a site under Acts, but generally referred to as an act which constitutes a crime, but in his special circumstances, misunderstanding that his act does not constitute a crime, which is permitted by Acts and subordinate statutes, and if there are justifiable grounds for

Article 16 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294Ma208 delivered on October 5, 1961 (Kakad 5801 and 5802; Supreme Court Decision 9-129 delivered on September 5, 196; Decision 16(2)1230 of the Criminal Act; Decision 3(2)1393 of the Antipublic Law

Defendant

Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (70 High Court Decision 3998)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is that the first material defendant was aware that he would obtain the permission of the Do governor to engage in the business of manufacturing edible milk, and even though he was engaged in the business of manufacturing edible milk without obtaining the permission of the Do governor, the court below found the defendant guilty and found the defendant guilty. Second, the defendant was issued a business inspection on January 1, 1969 by Daejeon Tax Office, and the defendant was engaged in the business of manufacturing edible milk for one year (the income is 2,300 won per day) and paid in full the tax on it (the income is 2,300 won per day) and did not manufacture edible milk harmful to human body, it is improper to make the sentence of the defendant too unreasonable.

We examine the following facts: First, Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that an act of misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under the law shall not be punishable when there are justifiable grounds. This is not merely a case of a site of law, but it is an act which constitutes a crime under the law, but it is generally misleading that one's act does not constitute a crime under the law, and if there are justifiable grounds in misunderstanding that one's act constitutes a crime under his special circumstances, it shall not be punishable. In this case, the defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing edible milk. In addition, the defendant was unaware that he would constitute a crime without the Do governor's permission, which is ultimately, in the business of manufacturing edible milk of the defendant, and this is not clear that Article 23 (1) and Article 22 of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 10 (1) 31 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act does not know that one's act was subject to the Do governor's permission, and thus, it does not constitute a case where the defendant's prior conviction of the defendant was not lawfully sentenced to punishment.

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)