Main Issues
Whether the violation of the Illegal Check Control Act is an intentional crime
Summary of Judgment
In the case of crimes punishable by special penal provisions, it is reasonable to interpret that there is no intention in accordance with the principle of general criminal law in the case of the composition of crimes by the violation of special penal provisions, and that even in the case of Article 2 of the Illegal Check Control Act, it is necessary to interpret that there is no intention in accordance with the provision of the law, unless it is the case where the above purpose can be clearly confirmed among the provisions of the law.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 2 Article 4 of the Illegal Check Control Act, Article 8 of the Criminal Act
upper and high-ranking persons
Prosecutor General;
Escopics
Defendant 1 and one other
Final Judgment
Supreme Court Decision 64Do669 Delivered on February 23, 1965
Text
This case's extraordinary appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
As to the ground of emergency appeal by the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, the purport that an intentional act is not required in a crime punishable by a special penal provision against the Prosecutor General of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office is not stipulated in the law, or even if there is no express statement, it is not possible to clearly confirm the above purport of the law, but in the composition of a crime by a special penal provision, an intentional act is required in accordance with the general criminal law principles (including an intentional intentional act), and there is a difference between the degree of social responsibility for illegality and the degree of punishment. Therefore, in principle, there is a difference between the degree of punishment and the degree of punishment, and the intentional act necessary for the establishment of the crime is sufficient if there is a perception or predictability of the fact that the crime is a crime, and it is not necessary to perform the act by wanting the occurrence of the fact or desire the occurrence of the result.
In this case, even after reviewing the Illegal Check Control Act, it is impossible to find out a clear provision that excludes the general provisions of the Criminal Act concerning intentional act, which is the general principle of the general criminal law, and it cannot be confirmed that the above legal provision does not exclude the requirements for intentional act even from the perspective of the above legal provision. According to Articles 2 (1) 2 and 4 (1) 3 of the above Act, a person who issues or prepares an illegal check shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than two years or by a fine not less than 2 to 10 times the check amount (in the case of issuance by his agent, punishment shall also be imposed). In full view of the above provisions, it is reasonable to interpret that the defendant's intentional act should also be required in the facts charged in this case, and there is no reason why the original judgment determined by the above legal opinion is just and there is no objection to the above.
Therefore, this case's extraordinary appeal cannot be adopted, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.
The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Round (Presiding Judge)