[1] The principle of interpreting penal provisions

[2] The meaning of "business supplying fuel oil for ship" under Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Transport Business Act

[1] The interpretation of a penal provision shall be strict, and the interpretation of a penal provision shall not be permitted because it is against the principle of no punishment without law to excessively expand or analogically interpret the meaning of a penal provision against the defendant.

[2] In light of the language and text of Article 2 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Transport Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722 of Feb. 29, 2008), the term “business supplying fuel oil for ships” should be interpreted as “business supplying ships with fuel oil used for navigation of ships.” Furthermore, regardless of the purpose of navigation of ships, it should be interpreted as “business supplying fuel oil to ships” or extended to “business supplying ships with fuel oil used for navigation of land machinery for simple storage purposes” as “business supplying ships with fuel oil for navigation of land for simple storage purposes” is not permissible as it goes against the principle of no punishment without law by excessively analogy or expanded interpretation of penal provisions.

[1] Article 12(1) of the Constitution and Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 2(4) and 30 subparag. 2 of the former Harbor Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008); Article 2 subparag. 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Harbor Transport Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20722, Feb. 29, 2008); Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4758 decided Nov. 24, 2005 (Gong2006Sang, 65) Supreme Court Decision 2006Do265 decided Jun. 2, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1300)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Incheon District Court Decision 2008No2343 Decided April 3, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The interpretation of penal provisions shall be strict, and the interpretation of penal provisions in the direction unfavorable to the defendant is not permitted because it is against the principle of no punishment without the law to excessively or analogically interpret the meaning of penal provisions in the direction unfavorable to the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4758, Nov. 24, 2005, etc.).

Article 30 subparagraph 2 of the former Harbor Transport Business Act (amended by Act No. 8852 of Feb. 29, 2008; hereinafter referred to as the "Act") provides that "any person who conducts a harbor transport-related business without registration or report under Article 26-3 (1) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine not exceeding ten million won, and Article 26-3 (1) of the Act provides that "any person who intends to conduct a harbor transport-related business shall register with the chief of a regional maritime affairs and fisheries office as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries by type of harbor and industry: Provided, That any person who intends to conduct a goods supply-related business shall report to the chief of a regional maritime affairs and fisheries office having jurisdiction over a harbor in the location of the head office or principal office, and Article 2 (4) of the Act provides that "port-related business" shall be construed as a "port-related business" for the purpose of expanding and supplying ships' goods or ships, regardless of the purpose of supplying them," and Article 20 (20) of the former Enforcement Decree.

In the same purport, the court below is just in maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Harbor Transport Business Act among the facts charged in this case, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the interpretation

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

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)