All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court Decision 2025Do12357 Decided April 16, 2026 【Violation of the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] Meaning of the term “marriage broker” that is subject to the application of Articles 26(2)6 and 12(1) of the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act (held: a “business owner” who has reported a domestic marriage brokerage business or registered an international marriage brokerage business and engages in the business of arranging marriages in exchange for fees, membership dues, or other money or goods, thereby becoming the entity to which the profits of such business revert) Where the entity who has registered an international marriage brokerage business is a “corporation,” whether the corporate business owner constitutes the marriage broker (affirmative), and whether the representative, agent, employee, or other workers of the corporation are also included in the definition of the term “marriage broker” (negative) [2] The purport of the joint penalty provisions under Article 27 of the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act Where a person who is not a marriage broker but actually executes the relevant affairs commits any violations under Article 26(2)6 and Article 12(1) of the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act, whether the marriage broker, who is the corporate business owner and the entity to which the profits of the violation revert, can also be punished in addition to punishing the actual offender who commits any violations under the above joint penalty provisions (affirmative) Whether the provisions concerning accomplice relationships in the General Provisions of the Criminal Act are applicable to the relationship between the “corporate business owner” and the “offender” under the joint penalty provisions (negative) [3] The principle of nemo judex sine actore and the scope of the judgment by a court Standard of determining which specific acts the Prosecutor has indicted Measure to be taken by a court where the purpose of the prosecution causes misunderstanding or is not clear Where the “facts charged” and the “applicable legal provisions” stated in a single bill of indictment are based on different constituent elements of a crime or different legal evaluations and thus are discordant or inconsistent, affecting the determination of guilt or innocence or impairing the criminal defendant’s exercise of the right to defense, whether the court needs to require the Prosecutor to properly supplement the bill of indictment by requesting further elucidation regarding the problems or errors in the facts charged and the applicable legal provisions and then thoroughly deliberate and adjudicate accordingly (affirmative) | |
