Article 17 of the Grain Management Act is a legal provision that exceeds the limit of delegated legislation under Article 74 of the Constitution, and it cannot be readily concluded that the provision violates the principle of no crime or punishment without law under Article 10(1) of the Constitution.

Article 17 of the former Grain Management Act (amended by Act No. 4707 of Jan. 5, 94) (amended by Act No. 4707 of Dec. 26, 200) is a legal provision that exceeds the limit of delegated legislation under Article 74 of the former Constitution (amended by Act No. 62. 26 of Dec. 26, 200), and it cannot be readily concluded that the provision violates

Article 17 of the Grain Management Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 69Da10792 delivered on June 3, 1969

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case is remanded to the Seoul Criminal Court.

The Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office's Grounds of Appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Article 17 of the Grain Management Act only shows the purpose of the establishment of delegation order and its personal application. However, the above appointment order and its scope are defined as "necessary persons". This is ultimately a delegated legislation or blank Criminal Act that violates the principle of no punishment without the law as provided by Article 10 (1) of the Constitution, and even if considering the provisions of Article 74 of the Constitution, it is invalid beyond the limit of the penal delegation. Accordingly, Article 15 (b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Grain Management Act and Article 1898 of the notification of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry pursuant to the above Acts and subordinate statutes should also be defined as invalid from the beginning of the year. Accordingly, the court below determined that the facts charged in this case where the defendant did not register on the retail sale of grain, which is an obligation provided by Article 10 (2) of the above notification of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, is not a crime.

However, according to Article 1 of the Grain Management Act, the Act was enacted for the purpose of managing grain in order to secure national food and ensure the stability of the national economy, and the contents of the grain management are clearly made clear that the supply and demand adjustment of grain and the maintenance of reasonable price, so the Government may order necessary matters to the grain dealer, the forwarder, or the processor as prescribed by the Presidential Decree (amended by Act No. 2213, Aug. 4, 1970). In conclusion, the Presidential Decree pursuant to Article 17 of the above Act should be ordered to maintain the supply and demand adjustment and reasonable price of grain, and the Presidential Decree pursuant to Article 17 of the above Act should be ordered to the grain dealer, the forwarder, or the processor, and the government should be bound only when it deems it particularly necessary for the management of grain.

Therefore, it cannot be said that Article 17 of the above Act does not have any provision concerning the matters and scope delegated by Presidential Decree. Also, considering its contents, it cannot be concluded that Article 17 of the above Act goes beyond the limit of delegated legislation under Article 74 of the Constitution and Article 10 (1) of the Constitution violates the principle of no punishment without the law as stipulated under Article 10 (1) of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the court below, on the ground of the above reasoning of the judgment below, concluded that Article 17 of the above Act of Grain Management provides that the provision of Article 17 of the above Act is invalid in violation of the Constitution, and on this premise, stated the Presidential Decree promulgated and enforced under Article 15 (1) 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the above Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 3752, Jan. 28, 1969) and the notice of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1898), and if the facts charged against the defendant were not effective, the court below's decision that the above provision should not be reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed by the assent of all participating judges, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court