Whether the enforcement period of the Chinese law constitutes "when the punishment has been abolished due to the repeal of the statute after the crime was committed"

When punishment has been abolished due to the amendment of the law after the crime under Article 326 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to the case where the right of punishment which has already been established actively or implicitly by the law after the crime has been committed is specifically waived by the state which has abolished it, i.e., the case where there has been a realization of the intention of the state which has abolished it. Even if the Act on Special Measures for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated Punishment for the Aggravated

Article 326 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Do257 delivered on January 31, 1963 (Supreme Court Decision 3939 delivered on November 31, 1963, Supreme Court Decision 11Nu9 delivered on July 11, 199 and Decision Decision Article 1(122) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 4 and seven others

Defendants

Seoul District Court (67 High Court Decision 19109)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants not guilty

1. The first summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant 1, 2, and 3 is that since the Act on Special Measures for the Prevention of Disorders without Compensation (hereinafter referred to as this Act) passed on December 31, 1971, which is a punishment provision for this case, and this case was repealed after the enactment or amendment of the law after the crime was committed, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered. The second summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant 4, 5 and the first summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant 6, 7 are that the above defendants were admitted to the Maritime Professional School and were eligible to apply for the Han-do Medical Examination due to reduction reduction graduation, and that the court below found the defendants guilty of the above defendants, but did not err in the misunderstanding of facts which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the second summary of the defendant 6, 7's appeal by the defense counsel, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, the court below's decision of dismissal is unreasonable since it did not err in the judgment of the court below.

2. The grounds of appeal concerning the abolition of the sentence of the defendant 1, 2 and 3 are examined first.

It is natural in the principle of no punishment without the law to punish a false criminal according to the law when he commits an act. The punishment, which is the effect of the criminal law already established by the law at the time of the act, is also natural in the principle of no punishment without the law. Since the punishment which is the effect of the criminal law already established by the law at the time of the act, is not extinguished or repealed by the law, the "when the punishment is repealed by the amendment or repeal of the law after the crime," it refers to a case where there is a manifestation of the intention of the country that has actively or implicitly given up the right of punishment which has already been established by the law after the crime. In the case of the so-called Korean law, the abolition or extinction of the law is not caused by the legislative concept or the change of the value of the criminal law, but is merely based on the change of the situation at the time after the abolition or extinguishment of the law, rather than after the abolition

However, this Act was enacted on the ground of the temporary circumstances that, after the 6.25 Incident occurred temporarily, there were many persons who did not work for the first time after the 196.25 Incident, and as such, it would have been resolved only by the need for remedy. As such, this Act also remains effective only until December 31, 1971, and its validity should be lost simultaneously with the lapse of the time limit, this Act itself provides for the enforcement of this Act (at the time of the enactment of this Act, the enforcement period was not fixed at the time of the enactment of this Act, but it was determined by the amendment of January 15, 1971). Thus, this Act is interpreted as belonging to the so-called Han Si law.

Therefore, even if this Act has been invalidated due to the lapse of the above time limit, it is not recognized as a state's explicit or implied intent to abolish the punishment under Article 6 of this Act, and it cannot be deemed that the punishment of violation of Article 6 of this Act is limited only to the period of enforcement of this Act and the punishment is abolished thereafter.

Ultimately, since the violation of this Act committed under the circumstances at the time of enforcement of this Act should be punished in accordance with the penal provisions at the time of the act when this Act became invalidated, the grounds for appeal as to the abolition of the sentence of the above defendants cannot be accepted.

3. Next, the following Defendants’ grounds for appeal on mistake of facts are examined, and the Defendants submitted to the Do governor the curriculum vitae, joint and several sureties, and academic guarantee certificates to the Do governor and submitted them to the Minister of Health and Welfare for the recognition of the qualifications for applying for the Korea Medical Examination, as stated in the indictment.

Accordingly, in light of the above facts, the Defendants were unable to obtain the above 3-year examination for graduation from the above 4-year examination for the reasons that they were unable to obtain the above 1-year examination for graduation from the above 8-year school, and their respective testimony by the witnesses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6-year examination for graduation from the above 1-year school, and their testimony by the witness 7-year examination for the first time to the above 1-year examination for graduation from the above 3-year examination for the first time. In light of the above facts, the 1-year examination for graduation from the above 1-year examination for the first time was included in the 1-year examination for the first time and the fact that the above 3-year examination for the first time was included in the 1-year examination for the first time, and the above 15-year examination for the first time was included in the 1-year examination for the first time to the 2-year examination for graduation from the above 3-year examination for the first time.

However, according to the provisions of this Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof, a person who has obtained qualification or license for oriental medical doctor in an attempted multi-functional district, which means "pets", can obtain a license for oriental medical doctor only if he passed the qualification examination for oriental medical doctor under the conditions as prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. In order to apply for the examination above, he prepared the prescribed documents and requested the Minister to obtain the approval decision. Although the term of school years has been reduced, Defendant 1, 6, 2, 7, 5, and 3 graduated from the above medical school even if the term of school years has been reduced, and Defendant 4 and 8 passed the examination, all the defendants were eligible to apply for the oriental medical doctor examination conducted under this Act, and therefore, in this case, even if Defendant 4 and 8 stated "pets" in this case, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the qualifications of application for the examination, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the procedure and method of application for the examination.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the member is again decided.

4. The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the Defendants are persons who returned to North Korea at the time of their retirement after January 4, 1951, and all of the Defendants were to acquire a license under the Act on Special Measures for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries at the time of their departure from the Republic of Korea. Despite the fact that they had not graduated from the piracy School at the time of the Yellow Sea, which is an attempted welfare, the Defendants were to obtain a license under the Act on Special Measures for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, the Defendants submitted to the Do governor, who was the Do governor who was the Do governor who was the Do governor who prepared the above three years of the above medical professional school in early January 1, 1967, and submitted the curriculum, joint and several sureties, joint and several sureties, and educational guarantee certificate to the Minister of Health and Welfare on the 11st of the same month, and had the Minister of Maritime Affairs obtain the license under the Act on Special Measures, but did not have obtained it but failed to achieve the purpose. Thus, the Defendants’ act of not having been found out the qualifications of the Act.

Judges Oral-ho (Presiding Judge)