(a) Abolition of public announcement and amendment to Acts and subordinate statutes;

B. The meaning of a case where a sentence is repealed due to the repeal or repeal of the Criminal Act and Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. The new public notice of the change of the driver's compliance under Article 48 subparagraph 9 of the Road Traffic Act, and the previous public notice was abolished that included the driver's collection of the driver's unfair charges in the example of the driver's compliance. Thus, the driver's collection of the unfair charges is ultimately excluded from the subject of punishment due to the revision or repeal of the law after the crime

B. The provisions of Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act or Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be interpreted to apply to cases where the previous punishment itself was unfair due to the change of the legal ideology that served as the reason for the enactment of the penal law, or where the statutes were amended or amended in light of reflective circumstances that excessive punishment was excessive. In cases where the statutes were amended or amended in order to cope with the special needs at that time, such as the change of the regulatory method for traffic order, there is no reason to extinguish or reduce the punishment for the violation committed at the time of the former Act, and therefore, even if the statutes were amended or amended, such violations shall be punished in light of the penal law at the time

A. Article 4 subparag. 9 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 3744 of Aug. 4, 1984), Article 79 subparag. 16 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 116 of the former Road Traffic Act, Article 48 subparag. 9 of the Road Traffic Act, and Article 113 subparag. 171B of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Notice No. 171 of the Criminal Act, Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 65Do406 decided Jun. 29, 1965; 77Do1280 decided Feb. 28, 1978; 82Do1861 decided Oct. 26, 1982

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 85No3481 delivered on October 31, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 44 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 3744 of Aug. 4, 1984) which was enforced at the time of the instant charges provides that "the driver of the passenger vehicle shall observe the following matters, and stipulates that "the head of other Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the head of the Metropolitan City, or the Do Governor deems it necessary for traffic safety and maintenance of order" as one of the matters to be observed. According to Article 79 subparagraph 1 of the same Act, an act of violating Article 44 shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 50,00 won, detention, or a minor fine, and Article 116 of the former Public Notice of Seoul Special Metropolitan City (amended by Act No. 3744 of Aug. 4, 1984) is one of the matters to be observed by a driver under Article 44 subparagraph 9 of the same Act, and Article 14 of the former Public Notice No. 98 of the Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 1984 of Apr. 16, 198, 1998).

The issue is that a judgment of acquittal should be rendered against the defendant, but Article 1 (2) of the Criminal Code or Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be interpreted to apply to the case where the previous punishment itself is unfair due to the change of the legal ideology that was the reason for the enactment of the penal law, or the amendment or repeal of the statute in consideration of reflect that the punishment was excessive. In the case of this case where the amendment or repeal of the statute to cope with the special needs at that time, such as the change of the regulatory method for traffic order at that time, there is no reason to extinguish or reduce punishment for the violation committed at the time of the former Act, and even if the statute was amended or amended, the violation should be punished in light of the penal law at the time of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 62Do257, Jan. 31, 1963; 77Do1280, Feb. 28, 198; 208Do18261, Oct. 26, 1982).

Therefore, the court below's decision of not guilty on the facts charged of this case is just and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

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

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)