The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 33(1) of the Summary of the Reasons for Appeal provides that a person who intends to conduct business under Article 32(1)1 through 3 of the Animal Protection Act shall register with the head of a Si/Gun/Gu, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Article 32(1)2 of the same Act provides that “animal sales business” as a type of business and Article 36(2) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act provide for the detailed scope of “animal sales business” as “business of selling or arranging animals to consumers.”

In light of the ordinary meaning of the language and text of the same Act as the Enforcement Rule of the Animal Protection Act, the court below found the defendant guilty on the charges of this case by deeming that the defendant engaged in animal sales business without registering to the market, etc., and that the pertinent case constitutes illegal expansion interpretation contrary to the principle of no punishment without law, and the interpretation of the competent authority is inconsistent. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Penal provisions must be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with the language and text, and they shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant. However, in the interpretation of penal provisions, a systematic and logical interpretation that clearly expresses the logical meaning of the text in accordance with the legal systematic relationship that takes into account the legislative purpose and purpose of the relevant provision within the meaning of the possible language and meaning of the relevant provision is for the interpretation that is most accessible to the essential contents of the

Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6287 Decided October 3, 2011 and Supreme Court Decision 2010.