In punishing “a person who falsely provides automobile history and seller information in violation of Article 58(3) of the Automobile Management Act”, whether it is permissible to interpret Article 80 subparag. 7-2 of the same Act including the case of simple omission in the meaning of “false provision” in accordance with the principle of no punishment without law (negative)

Article 58(3) of the Automobile Management Act provides that “When a motor vehicle dealer advertises a motor vehicle via the Internet, matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, such as the history of the motor vehicle and seller information, shall be published.” Article 120(4)6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides that “matters concerning the membership number and name of the dealer” as one of the “matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, such as automobile history and seller information,” and Article 80 subparag. 7-2 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides that “any person who falsely provides personal history and seller information in violation of Article 58(3)” shall be punished. In other words, Article 58(3) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides that, even if Article 8(3) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides for the general duty of publication on matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, such as automobile history and seller information, it is clear that Article 80 subparag. 7-2 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act merely applies the penal provision to the defendant without simply providing information in accordance with the legal doctrine.

Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 1(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 58(3) and 80 subparag. 7-2 of the Automobile Management Act; Article 120(4)6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Busan District Court Decision 2017No1990 decided August 11, 2017

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The principle of no punishment without the law requires that a crime and punishment shall be prescribed by law in order to protect individual freedom and rights from the arbitrary exercise of the State’s penal authority. In light of such purport, the interpretation of the penal law shall be strict, and an excessively expanded interpretation or analogical interpretation of the meaning of the express penal law in the direction unfavorable to the defendant is not allowed as it is against the principle of no punishment without the law (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4230, Nov. 28, 2013

Article 58(3) of the Automobile Management Act provides that “When a motor vehicle dealer advertises a motor vehicle via the Internet, matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, such as the history of the motor vehicle and seller information, shall be published.” Article 120(4)6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides that “matters concerning the membership number and name of the dealer” as one of the “matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, such as automobile history and seller information,” and Article 80 subparag. 7-2 of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides that “a person who falsely provides personal history and seller information in violation of Article 58(3)” shall be punished. In short, Article 58(3) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides that, even if Article 8(3) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act provides for the general duty of publication on matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, such as automobile history and seller information, it is clear that the application of the penal provision is simply a person who violates Article 58(3) or 58(3) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act.

In the same purport, the court below was just in finding the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its holding that the Defendant, a used vehicle dealer, merely omitted the description of his employee identification number while advertising a motor vehicle via the Internet, and did not falsely state the matters provided for in Article 58(3) of the Automobile Management Act and each subparagraph of Article 120(4) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 80 subparag. 7-2

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

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)