[1] The scope of application of Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act

[2] Whether deletion under Article 138 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act was made based on the reflective consideration that the former punishment itself was unfair (affirmative)

[1] The provisions of Article 1(2) of the Criminal Code shall apply to cases where the evaluation of acts deemed a crime in the past was changed due to the change of the legal ideology which was the reason for the enactment of penal law, and thus, the evaluation thereof was recognized and punished as a crime is unfair, or where the Acts and subordinate statutes were amended or amended to cope with the special needs at that time due to the change of circumstances other than the change of the legal ideology. In a case where the Acts and subordinate statutes are amended or amended to cope with the special needs at that time, it shall not be deemed to have been punished as acts at the time of the act even if the Acts and subordinate statutes were amended or amended, even if they were amended or amended, it shall not be deemed to have been abolished.

[2] Article 138 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 346 of Jan. 2, 2003) was deleted, and Article 138 (3) and (4) was newly established in the course of automobile-scrapping and thus recovered in the course of automobile-scrapping, and the components reusable for automobile repair do not conflict with the motor vehicle safety standards, etc. The vehicle-scrapping business operator required to attach signs containing the name of the business entity, telephone number, the model used, the form and form of the vehicle used, the name of the parts, and the mileage of the parts, etc. to the functional device or parts such as reusable motor. The purpose of the vehicle-generating business operator is to reuse the motor of the scrapped motor due to the improvement of the performance and quality of its parts due to the development of automobile-generating technology, and even if this is permitted under certain conditions, it should be deemed that the previous measure that made the automobile compressed, crushed, or cut the motor during automobile-scrapping is unfair.

[1] Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 2, 58(5), and 80 subparag. 6 of the Automobile Management Act; Article 138(1)1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 346 of Jan. 2, 2003); Article 138(3) and (4) of the Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 62Do257 delivered on January 31, 1963 (No. 11-1, 9) Supreme Court Decision 79Do2953 delivered on July 22, 1980 (Gong1980, 13054) Supreme Court Decision 84Do413 delivered on December 11, 1984 (Gong1985, 184), Supreme Court Decision 97Do2682 delivered on December 9, 197 (Gong198Sang, 353)

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 2002No4270 Delivered on April 25, 2003

All the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the first instance are reversed. Defendant is acquitted.

According to the records, the first instance court convicted the defendant, who is an automotive dismantler, of the charges of this case, that he violated Article 80 subparagraph 6 of the Automobile Management Act and Article 58 (5) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act by selling 223 motors on the used parts from January 2, 2001 to September 12, 2002, without compressing, crushing, or cutting them, and selling them on the used parts. The lower court also acquitted the defendant of the charges of this case. The lower court rejected the defendant's assertion that there was no special reason to punish the motor of this case as to the alteration of the motor of this case under Article 138 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 346 of Jan. 2, 2003, 2003), since the motor of the manufacturer's etc.'s free guarantee period has expired, it cannot be deemed that there was a special reason to punish the defendant's act.

The provisions of Article 1 (2) of the Criminal Act shall apply to cases where the evaluation of acts deemed a crime in the past has changed depending on the changes in the legal ideology which served as the reason for the enactment of the penal law, and thus, the evaluation thereof has been recognized and punished as a crime, and where the Acts and subordinate statutes have been amended or amended in consideration of anti-sexual records that there was an excessive punishment, or where the Acts and subordinate statutes were amended or amended in order to cope with special needs at the time due to changes in circumstances other than those resulting from such changes in the legal ideology, it shall not be deemed to have been punished as acts at the time of the acts even if the Acts and subordinate statutes were amended or amended (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do2682, Dec. 9, 197, etc.). The court below pointed out as follows.

However, in this case, Article 138(3) and (4) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Automobile Management Act was deleted, and thus the used parts are recovered during the automobile scrapping process and recycled for the automobile repair use do not conflict with the safety standards, etc. The automobile scraping business operator required to attach signs stating the name of the business entity, telephone number, the type used, its form and formula, the name of the parts, and the mileage, etc. to the functional device or parts such as reusable motor. The purpose of this case is to improve the performance and quality of the parts of the automobile manufacturing technology, and it is necessary to reuse the scrapped motor of the scrapped motor due to the improvement of the performance and quality of the parts of the automobile, and even if this is allowed under certain conditions, it is an anti-sexual measure taken from the fact that the previous measure that the automobile scraping, crushing, or cutting the automobile at the time of scraping is unfair. Accordingly, the defendant's act should be excluded from the punishment to the effect that it constitutes an offense after the abolition, crushing, or cutting of motor under Article 138(1)1)1 of the former Enforcement Rule.

Therefore, the above facts charged against the defendant shall be acquitted pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance which convicted the defendant are all unlawful, they shall be reversed, and this court shall decide to self-determination in accordance with Article 396 (1) of the same Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)