Whether Article 25(1) and Article 31 subparag. 1 of the Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources violate the principle of no punishment without the law, and are invalid beyond the limits of delegated legislation (affirmative)

"Restriction or prohibition on fishing vessels" in Article 48 (1) 2 of the Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990), which is delegated to the Presidential Decree, is called as restriction or prohibition on the number, size, facilities, and fishing methods of fishing vessels. If a fishing vessel is used during the period of fishery engagement, Article 25 (1) of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990) provides that if a fishing vessel is used during the period of fishery engagement, the fishing vessel shall be placed in the fishing vessel and carried in the fishing vessel, and if it is not against this provision, it is evident that the restriction or prohibition on fishing gear or fishing vessel shall not be related to the restriction or prohibition on fishing gear, and Article 25 (1) and Article 31 subparagraph 1 of the above Decree unfairly expands the scope of punishment without delegation of the parent law, and it violates the principle of no punishment without law and goes beyond the limit of delegated legislation.

Articles 12(1) and 75 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 48(1) of the Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990); Article 25(1) and Article 31 subparag. 1 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources

Supreme Court en banc Decision 91Do1617 delivered on October 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 2870) decided November 12, 1991 (Dong)

A

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 91No226 delivered on May 24, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

Article 48 (1) of the Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990) provides that "Restriction or prohibition with respect to fishing gear or fishing vessel may be prescribed by Presidential Decree for the purpose of fishery control, sanitary control, distribution order, and other matters necessary for coordination of fisheries" (Article 48 (1) 2 provides that "Restriction or prohibition with respect to fishing gear or fishing vessel shall be limited or prohibited with respect to the number and size of fishing vessel, equipment, and fishing method" (Article 25 (1) of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources (Article 25 (1) of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources) provides that "where a fishing vessel is used during the period of engaging in fisheries, a person engaged in fisheries shall keep the fishing vessel and carry it with the fishing vessel if the fishing vessel is not used", and it is clear that the restriction or prohibition with respect to fishing gear or fishing vessel, and there is no ground for delegation thereof under the Fisheries Act, and therefore, it does not violate the principle of no punishment without law (Article 25 (19)1). 16).

In the same purport, it is proper that the court below maintained the judgment of the first instance that acquitted the defendant of this case prosecuted by applying Article 31 subparagraph 1 and Article 25 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources and Article 31 subparagraph 1 of the same Decree on the charges that the defendant as the owner and captain of B is invalid in light of the principle of no punishment without the law or the limitation of delegated legislation, and that the defendant did not keep the fishery permit in the ship at around 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 1st day of the 190 west-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, the Gyeong-gun, the Do governor, as the captain of B, and did not contain any error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

The issue is groundless.

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

Justices Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)