If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The defendant is the owner and the captain of coastal sea cab vessel C(250 EM).

1. Any person who intends to occupy or use public waters by constructing a new building or other artificial structure on public waters shall obtain permission for occupancy or use from the management agency of public waters;

Nevertheless, from the beginning of October 2008 to June 12, 2012, the Defendant, without obtaining permission for occupation and use of public waters in the non-subspeak-dong non-subspeak-dong non-subspeak-dong Non-Saridong, occupied and used public waters by creating a rectangular building (a.e., about 5 meters x about 7 meters x vertical length) manufactured for the use of the water, and by setting it at anchor.

2. On February 28, 2012 and March 28, 2012, the Defendant did not comply with the above order to reinstate, on the ground that there was no space for losses of his/her nets even though he/she received an order to reinstate a total of twice from the Gunsan Regional Maritime and Port Authority, the management agency of public waters, on two occasions.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of photographs and orders to reinstate public waters;

1. Article 62 Subparag. 2 of the relevant Act on Criminal facts, Articles 62 Subparag. 2, 8(1) of the Act on the Management and Reclamation of Public Waters (unauthorizedly Occupancy or Use of Public Waters), Articles 64 Subparag. 3 and 21(2) of the Act on the Management and Reclamation of Public Waters, and the selection of fines for negligence;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel regarding the provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act was developed and there was no contact facility for small-sized fishing vessels, and the defendant's construction of the water structure of this case without any choice to maintain their livelihood, and thus, it constitutes an emergency evacuation or legitimate act.

According to each evidence of the judgment, the act of installing the above water structure of the defendant is at the time to avoid the present danger.