A. The interpretation of Article 170(2) of the Criminal Code and the principle of no crime or punishment without law, of "goods mentioned in Article 166 or 167 which belong to one's own possession"

(b) The case where the case is remanded to the first instance court after revoking both a decision dismissing the public prosecution in the first instance and a decision dismissing the appeal by the lower court; and

A. [Majority Opinion] Article 170(2) of the Criminal Act provides that "goods referred to in Article 166 or 167 which belong to one's own possession" shall mean "goods referred to in Article 166 or things referred to in Article 167 which belong to one's own possession, whether they belong to or belong to another's own possession," and Article 170(1) and (2) provides that "goods belonging to another's ownership (general buildings, etc.) referred to in Article 166 which belong to another's ownership" shall be construed as "goods referred to in Article 166 or 167 which belong to one's own possession," and Article 170(2) provides that "goods referred to in Article 167 shall belong to one's own ownership, regardless of belonging to one's own ownership." Even if such interpretation is interpreted, it shall not be deemed to go beyond the possible meaning of the provisions of the Act and it shall not be deemed to constitute legal formation or legal interpretation prohibited by the principle of no punishment without law.

[Dissenting Opinion] Article 170 (2) of the Criminal Code is clearly called "goods mentioned in Article 166 or 167 which belong to one's own possession" and does not mean "goods mentioned in Article 166 or articles mentioned in Article 167 which belong to one's own possession". Thus, in our ordinary expression method, "the things mentioned in Article 166 or 167 which belong to one's own possession" can only be seen as "goods mentioned in Article 166 or 167 which belong to one's own possession". It cannot be viewed as "goods mentioned in Article 166 or things mentioned in Article 167 which belong to one's own possession, or things mentioned in Article 167 which belong to one's own possession".

(b) The case where the case was remanded to the first instance court after the revocation of both the first instance court's dismissal decision and the lower court's dismissal decision on its appeal; and

A. Articles 170(2) and 1 of the Criminal Act, Article 12(1) of the Constitution, Article 393 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Article 414(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

B. Supreme Court Order 82Mo24 dated August 16, 1982 (Gong1982, 898)

A co-inspector;

A

Daejeon District Court Order 94Ro1 dated May 6, 1994

The order of the court below and the decision of the first instance shall be revoked, and the case shall be remanded to Daejeon District Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to the records, on March 23, 1993, the prosecutor maintained Article 170(2) and Article 167 of the Criminal Act as applicable provisions of the Criminal Act to the charges that the defendant destroyed an area equivalent to 6710,000 won of the market price of private trees owned by the victims, including victims C, etc., who are in the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon District, with winding so that it is difficult to attach a boat or a felbbing with a feling tobacco with a feling felling with a felling with a felingus, without confirming whether the felbling is completely fireed, and then deserts away from the place without confirming whether the remaining feling is completely fireed, and continuously moved the feling and feling to the victims, and thus, he did not constitute an immediate appeal under Article 170(2) of the Criminal Act or an immediate appeal under Article 170(2) of the Criminal Act to the court below for the reason that it constitutes an immediate appeal under Article 167 of the Criminal Act.

2. However, a person who causes public danger by burning an object mentioned in Article 166 or 167 of the Criminal Act shall be construed as "a person who causes public danger by burning an object mentioned in Article 166 of his own property, or an object mentioned in Article 167, which is his own property, and thereby burns an object mentioned in Article 167, which is his own property and thereby causes public danger," and shall not be punished in cases where the object of another person's property is destroyed by fire and then causes public danger, unless it is punished in cases where the object of another person's own property is destroyed by fire and fire and damage and damage to the object of another person's property under Article 166 (2) of the Criminal Act (in such cases, the cause of public danger shall be the requirement) more severe than punishment, and in cases where a general object belonging to another person's own property is destroyed by fire and thus causes public danger, it shall be punished more than cases where the object falls under one's own property, and in cases where it is clearly unreasonable than Article 166 of the fire and other's property.

Therefore, "goods listed in Article 166 or 167, which belong to one's own possession" under Article 170 (2) of the Criminal Code, shall be interpreted as "goods listed in Article 166 or 167, which belong to one's own possession, regardless of their own possession," and "goods listed in Article 167, which belong to another's ownership" shall be interpreted as "goods listed in Article 166, which belong to one's own possession, regardless of their own possession," and Article 170 (1) and (2) shall be interpreted as "goods listed in Article 167, which belong to another's own ownership" and Article 166 (2) shall be defined as "those belonging to one's own ownership" and Article 167 shall be defined as "those belonging to one's own ownership, regardless of their own ownership," and it shall not be deemed as constituting a prohibited interpretation or expansion interpretation of the principle of no punishment without law. Therefore, this shall be justified.

3. Therefore, the re-appeal is accepted and the decision of the court of first instance is revoked, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court, which is the first instance court (However, considering only the facts charged in this case, it appears that the defendant, by negligence, brought a public prosecution against the fact that the victim destroyed the death trees, but since Articles 170 (2) and 167 of the Criminal Act are stated in the indictment as applicable provisions of the Act, the fact-finding court is first required to adjust the facts charged in accordance with the above law), and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, except for the Cho Jong-sung, Cho Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, Park Jong-ho, and Kim Jong-tae.

The dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court Decision 201Hun-Ga119 delivered on March 1, 201 is as follows.

The majority opinion should be interpreted as "goods listed in Article 166 or 167 which belong to one's own possession" under Article 170 (2) of the Criminal Code as "goods listed in Article 166 or 167 which belong to one's own possession", first of all, as "goods listed in Article 166 or things listed in Article 167 which belong to one's own possession", and further, it should be interpreted as "goods listed in Article 166 which belong to one's own ownership or things listed in Article 167 which belong to one's own ownership".

However, the interpretation of the penal law should start from the literal interpretation, and it should not be said that it goes beyond the scope of the possible interpretation of the text, and it should not be easily permitted under the principle of prohibition of analogical interpretation, which is an important content of the principle of no punishment without law.

Article 170 (2) of the Criminal Code is clearly called "goods mentioned in Article 166 or 167 which belong to one's own possession" and does not mean "goods mentioned in Article 166 or articles mentioned in Article 167 which belong to one's own possession". Thus, as a common expression method at the end of Korea, "the things mentioned in Article 166 or 167 which belong to one's own possession" can only be seen as "goods mentioned in Article 166 or 167 which belong to one's own possession", and it cannot be viewed as "goods mentioned in Article 166 which belong to one's own possession" or "goods mentioned in Article 167 which belong to one's own possession," and it cannot be viewed as "goods mentioned in Article 167 which belong to one's own possession".

It can be said that there is a need for punishment in a case where a fire-fighting of a general object belonging to another person's ownership causes public danger. However, the necessity of punishment should be satisfied through the revision of the law, and if it is intended to achieve its purpose by interpreting the penal provisions of the Criminal Act in a different sense that it cannot be interpreted remarkably as an ordinary expression method at the end of Korea without the amendment of the law, it is not likely to undermine the spirit of the principle of no punishment without the law.

For this reason, we cannot agree with the majority opinion.

Justices Yoon-ho (Presiding Justice) Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice) Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jin-ho (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)