Whether only the business of crushing and screening aggregate extracted by another person before the amendment of the former Enforcement Decree of the Aggregate Extraction Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14666 of Jun. 16, 1995) constitutes aggregate extraction business under the Aggregate Extraction Act.

Before the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Aggregate Extraction Act by Presidential Decree No. 14666 of Jun. 16, 1995, the business engaged in screening or crushing of aggregate extracted by another person was not classified as a form of independent aggregate extraction business, and the registration standards therefor have not been formulated, and administrative agencies did not deal with it as a subject of registration. Thus, the act of purchasing raw stone extracted by another person before the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Aggregate Extraction Act and crushing and screening it with a string with the string, cannot be deemed as falling under aggregate extraction business requiring registration under Article 14 of the Aggregate Extraction Act.

Articles 14 and 49 subparag. 1 of the Aggregate Extraction Act, Article 19 and [Attachment Table 1] of the Enforcement Decree of the Aggregate Extraction Act, Article 19 and [Attachment Table 1] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Aggregate Extraction Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 14666 of Jun. 16, 195)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Lee In-bok

Seoul District Court Decision 95No3202 delivered on September 21, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case that the defendant violated Article 49 subparagraph 1 of the Aggregate Extraction Act by operating the aggregate extraction business without registering it, on the ground that since the business of screening or crushing the aggregate extracted by another person was not classified as a form of independent aggregate extraction business before the amendment of the Enforcement Decree of the Aggregate Extraction Act by Presidential Decree No. 1466 of June 16, 195, and the administrative agency did not treat it as a subject to registration, the defendant's act of purchasing tin collected by another person before the amendment of the above Enforcement Decree was not regarded as a violation of the legal principles concerning the Aggregate Extraction Act or violation of the rules of evidence, as discussed in the judgment below.

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

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)