[사문서위조·위조사문서행사·수산업법위반][미간행]
[1] The meaning of "in a case where the fishery business is permitted in a false or other unlawful manner" under Article 95 subparagraph 1 of the Fisheries Act
[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that if a fishery proprietor submitted a forged minutes of fishing village fraternity and obtained a fishery permit as if he consented to a change in the fishery permit, it constitutes a case where a fishery permit was obtained by falsity or other unlawful means under Article 95 subparagraph 1 of the Fisheries Act
[1] Article 95 subparagraph 1 of the Fisheries Act / [2] Article 95 subparagraph 1 of the Fisheries Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Nu6529 delivered on January 20, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 919)
A
Defendant
Attorney B
Gwangju District Court Decision 2004No2225 Decided December 24, 2004
The appeal is dismissed.
1. According to its adopted evidence, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that found the defendant guilty of the charge of forging and uttering of private documents, and held that the defendant merely obtained consent from the fishing village fraternity for the change of the name of fishery permit and submitted the minutes of the fishing village fraternity with false contents as if he obtained consent from the general meeting of the fishing village fraternity for the change of the name of fishery permit, although there was no explicit consent as to the change of the name of fishery permit. In light of the records, the court below's aforementioned evidence preparation, fact-finding, and determination are just and acceptable, and since the consent for the change of the name of fishery permit and the consent for the change of the name of fishery permit cannot be the same, it cannot be deemed that the consent for the change of the name of fishery permit was included in the implied consent for the change of the name of fishery permit. Thus, the court below's judgment to the same purport does not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the mistake of facts or the misapprehension of legal principles concerning
2. The phrase "cases where permission for fisheries is obtained by false or other unlawful means" under Article 95 subparagraph 1 of the Fisheries Act includes cases where permission is obtained by using deceptive means or other acts which are deemed unfair by social norms even though permission for fisheries cannot be obtained by normal procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 94Nu6529 delivered on January 20, 195).
In the same purport, the court below held that the defendant's act constitutes a case where a fishery permit was obtained by fraudulent or other unlawful means as long as the fishery permit of this case was obtained by submitting forged minutes of fishing village fraternity as he/she had consented to a change in fishery permit. In light of the records, the court below's above determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 95 subparagraph 1 of the Fisheries Act, as otherwise
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)