Whether an act constitutes a mistake in law where a person becomes guilty of the business of maintaining and manufacturing without permission

The purport of Article 16 of the Criminal Act is that the mistake of law does not mean a simple legal site, but is generally an act that constitutes a crime, but in one’s special case, it does not constitute a crime permitted by Acts and subordinate statutes, and is not punishable if there is a justifiable reason to mislead the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding that the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the Do Governor’s permission in engaging in the maintenance and manufacturing business is ultimately that the misunderstanding of the misunderstanding of the Do Governor

Article 16 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al. (Law No. 12636, Feb. 12, 1980)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months, and by a fine not exceeding 400,000,000 (400,000) for each of the defendants 2.

The sixty days of detention days prior to the rendering of a judgment shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 1.

However, the execution of the above punishment against Defendant 1 shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The sentence of a fine against Defendant 1 shall be suspended.

Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. is a corporation whose head office is to be maintained, manufactured, processed, and sold at the Nam-gu, Incheon. Defendant 1 had a representative director of the said corporation from November 16, 1984 to May 20, 1985;

1. Defendant 1:

Between November 16, 1984 and May 8, 1985, without obtaining food processing business permission from the competent authorities, the total market price of 379,306 kilograms of money used as raw materials for food production using 379,427,980 kilograms of money used as raw materials for food production in a method of heating and storing oil from heating at a factory located in the same place as above, is 380,478,680 kilograms of money equivalent to the total market price of 196,440 kilograms of money and 400,440 kilograms of money, equivalent to the total market price of 196,050,70 kilograms of money, equivalent to the total market price of 196,478,680 won;

2. Defendant 2 corporation

The above defendant 1, who is the representative of the same defendant, made 380,478,680 won at the market price of 774,747 kilograms of money and wells, without permission, at the same time, time, and place as described in the preceding paragraph, with respect to the same defendant's business.

Each fact in the ruling,

1. Statement corresponding to Defendant 1 in the protocol of the first trial;

1. Statements corresponding to Non-Indicted 1’s statements in the second protocol of trial

1. Statement corresponding to each protocol of suspect examination prepared by the public prosecutor and judicial police officer concerning Defendant 1 in the course of performing duties;

1. Each statement made by the judicial police officer with respect to Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4 on the preparation of duty handling by the judicial police officer, which correspond to this.

1. Each statement in Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 2’s written statements corresponding thereto

1. Among questions and answers to the Minister of Health and Welfare of party members, the statement that the maintenance of the decision is an intermediate product as prescribed in Article 9 (1) 30 of the Enforcement Decree of the Food Sanitation Act, and that the food processing method should be permitted to manufacture it; and

1. From among certified copies of corporate register bound in the records, the facts in the judgment can be recognized by Defendant 1 by integrating the statement that Defendant 2 is the representative director of the corporation, and all of the facts in the judgment are proven.

Defendant 1's so-called "Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes Act" shall be included in the above Article 2 (1) 1 and Article 23 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, including the above Article 6, Article 2 (1) 1 and (2) of the Act on Special Measures for the Control of Public Health Crimes, and Article 23 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act shall be included in the above Article 2 (1) 5 of the same Act, and if the above Article 2 (2) of the same Act provides that the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a significant period of 6 years, and if the defendant's above provision of the above Article 2 (1) 1 and 2 of the same Act provides that the defendant shall be punished by a fine of 50 million won, it shall be punished by a fine of 50 million won, and if the defendant's above provision of the above Article 2 of the same Act provides the same Article of the same Act to the same Article of the same Act, he shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for the same time as the above 500-year period of imprisonment without prison labor.

Since the Defendants had known that they should obtain permission from the Do Governor in manufacturing the foods processing business, they were manufactured without the above approval from the Do Governor, and the Defendants asserted that they were innocent due to justifiable grounds in the process of not recognizing illegality or causing mistake, and Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that their acts of misunderstanding that their acts do not constitute a crime under statutes shall not be punishable if there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding. This does not mean simple cases of the site of law, but in general, acts which constitute a crime under general law but do not constitute a crime under special circumstances, but if there are justifiable grounds for misunderstanding that they do not constitute a crime under special laws and regulations, they shall not be punishable. In this case, the defendants knew that they would have known that they would constitute a crime without obtaining permission from the Do Governor. This is ultimately, since they did not accept the provisions of Article 23 (1) of the Food Sanitation Act, Article 22 (1) of the Enforcement Decree, Articles 9 (1) and 30 of the same Act, which provide that they should obtain permission from the Do Governor, even if they did not know that they did not constitute a crime.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-k (Presiding Justice)