[1] In a case where a law with different legislative purposes prescribes the requirements for a certain act, whether the act satisfies the requirements under the provisions of each law

[2] In a case where the defendant, the representative director of Gap corporation, was prosecuted for violating the Security Services Industry Act by running an aggregate building facility security business without obtaining permission from the commissioner of the competent district police agency, the case affirming the judgment below convicting Gap corporation of the same purport on the ground that even if Gap completed the registration of housing management business under Article 53 (1) of the Housing Act, it should obtain permission under Article 4 of the Security Services Industry

[1] Article 4(1) of the Security Services Industry Act; Article 53(1) of the former Housing Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 4(1) of the Security Services Industry Act; Article 28(2)1 of the Security Services Industry Act (Amended by Act No. 11872, Jun. 7, 2013); Article 53(1) of the former Housing Act (Amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013); Article 97 subparag. 14 of the former Housing Act (Amended by Act No. 11871, Jun. 4, 2013)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3216 delivered on January 12, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 914) Supreme Court Decision 2000Du5159 delivered on January 25, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 589)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2013No718 decided September 12, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where the laws with different legislative purposes provide for the requirements for certain acts in preference to other Acts, they shall meet the requirements under each Act with respect to such acts unless it is construed that any Act takes precedence over other Acts (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu3216 delivered on January 12, 1995).

The Housing Act and the Security Services Industry Act are different from the legislative purpose, scope of application, etc., and they are mutually contradictory or are applied exclusively by any Act prior to other Acts. Thus, even if the defendant completed the registration of housing management business under Article 53(1) of the Housing Act, in order to legally carry out the security service of facilities of an aggregate building, it is necessary to separately obtain permission under Article 4 of the Security Services Industry Act.

In the same purport, the court below rejected Defendant’s assertion and found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the violation of the Security Industry Act.

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

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)