The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion that the limitation of delegated legislation was exceeded

(a) not only is it de facto impossible to provide for all laws and regulations related to criminal punishment by law within a formal meaning, but also is not suitable in reality;

The delegation legislation is allowed under the premise that the kinds, limits and scope of punishment are clearly defined in the aspect of the elements of punishment, and in the case of punishment, the delegation legislation is not against the principle of no punishment without the law. This delegation legislation does not violate the principle of no punishment without the law.

A delegation order may be issued when there is an individual delegation that sets a specific scope in the law or higher order.

The specific scope of delegation should be defined in detail as the basic contents and scope to be stipulated in the delegation order, so anyone can predict the outline of the contents to be stipulated in the delegation order from the relevant law or upper level order.

In this case, the predictability of the delegation clause should not be determined with only one delegation clause, but the overall system and purpose of the delegation clause or higher order to which the delegation clause belongs, the form and content of the delegation clause in question, and the relevant laws and regulations should be determined systematically and systematically. Furthermore, the specific individual review should be made in accordance with the nature of each delegation object.

(Supreme Court Decision 2017Do13426 Decided June 28, 2018). B.

Article 26(2)4 of the former Marriage Brokers Business Management Act (amended by Act No. 14700, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter “Marriage Business Act”) provides personal information in violation of Article 10-2(1) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding twenty million won.