A. In a case where a ban and penal provision on the act of receiving false housing under the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 1992) is repealed, punishment of the violation before the amendment of the same Act shall be imposed.

B. Before the enforcement of the current Regulations on Housing Supply, punishment shall be imposed for the act that the owner of an agricultural or fishing village has subscribed as a head of a homeless household.

A. Article 47(1) and Article 51 subparag. 6 of the former Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530, Dec. 8, 1992) stipulate prohibition and punishment for the act of supplying a house through false or other unlawful means. The amendment of the Act to abolish the prohibition and penal provision is merely a change in the economic and social circumstances that makes it possible for an unqualified person to easily color the unqualified person with the complete completion of the housing computer network, and thus, the violation prior to the amendment of the Act must be punished by the Act at the time of the act.

B. Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Regulations on Housing Supply (amended by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 537 of Sep. 1, 1893) was amended to consider the owners of certain houses in agricultural and fishing villages (the owners of houses constructed in the permanent domicile of owners, among the houses constructed in an area other than urban planning zones under the Urban Planning Act, and transferred by inheritance, etc. to the relevant housing construction area, who have been relocated five years after moving to the relevant housing construction area) as the head of a homeless household under the same regulations as being eligible for preferential subscription. This is to improve and supplement the deficiencies arising in the operation of the previous regulations in terms of administrative reform, deregulation, or legislative reflection. Thus, prior to the enforcement of the above regulations, the so-called "house owners in agricultural and fishing villages" subscribed to as the head of a homeless household

A. (B) Article 326 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 47(1) and Article 51 subparag. 6(b) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act (amended by Act No. 4530 of Dec. 8, 1992), Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Rules on Housing Supply (amended by Act No. 537 of Sep. 1, 1993)

1.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Acquittal of the accused shall be acquitted.

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant, even though not qualified as the first subscriber of the national housing, applied for the first deposit in 32 square meters of the Gwangju High-speed Construction Business Division on June 29, 1992, which sold in lots by Gwangju High-speed Construction Business Division, and won the winning, and that the Defendant was supplied national housing by deceit or other unlawful means by entering into a sales contract around that time.

First, Articles 47(1) and 51(6) of the Housing Construction Promotion Act provide for prohibition of and punishment for the act of receiving a house supplied under the same Act by deceit or other unlawful means in relation to the revision of the Housing Construction Promotion Act. However, the prohibition and penal provision on the act of receiving a house is deleted, and the prohibition and penal provision on the act of transferring a certain certificate or status is provided for prohibition and punishment of transfer or intermediation of transfer. This is determined to abolish the punishment on the act of receiving a house in accordance with changes in the economic and social circumstances that make it possible to easily color a disqualified person by furnishing the housing computer network, and thus, the act before the abolition of the punishment is punished by the Act at the time of the act.

Second, with regard to the amendment of the Rules on Housing Supply (Ordinance of the Ministry of Construction), the defendant did not meet the requirements for the homeless householder at the time of the above subscription and conclusion of the contract due to the inheritance house of the defendant's permanent domicile. Therefore, even though the defendant did not have the first priority, he applied to the first-order householder. However, in the above acts, the owner of the above Rules limits the eligibility for subscription by deeming the above rules as the tenant. At present, the above acts are currently limited to the owner of the house constructed in an area other than the urban planning zone under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the above Rules (Enforcement of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 537 of Sep. 1, 1993). The owner of the house constructed in an area other than the urban planning zone under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the above Rules (Enforcement of the Ministry of Construction and Transportation No. 537 of Sep. 1, 1993) and transferred the house by inheritance from his lineal ascendant, etc. to the housing construction zone. Accordingly, the defendant's legislative revision or revision of the above Rule No. 3.

Judges Chungcheong Sang-hoon