Meanwhile, Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that “previous” shall govern when determining the boundary of the jurisdiction of a local government. In light of the history of amendment of Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, the criteria for “previous” are successively sleeped to the first enacted legal provisions. Thus, the boundary of the jurisdiction at the time of August 15, 1948 is the primary standard. The boundary of the jurisdiction of a local government for public waters is the boundary of the jurisdiction of a local government at the time of August 15, 1948 in accordance with the same standard. Accordingly, the boundary of the jurisdiction of a local government for public waters should be verified first in accordance with the same standard. This is a matter of fact-finding to confirm

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

Article 98 Subparag. 8 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 12541, Mar. 24, 2014; hereinafter “former Fisheries Act”) provides that “any person who violates an order to coordinate fisheries, etc. under Article 61” shall be punished. Article 61(1) provides that administrative agencies may order necessary matters for coordinating fisheries, etc.; and Article 61(2) provides that “the restriction or prohibition of operating areas for inshore fisheries” in subparagraph 2 and Article 61(2) provides that matters necessary for the restriction or prohibition thereof shall be prescribed by Presidential Decree. Article 40(1) [Attachment 3] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, upon delegation of Article 61(2) of the same Act, provides that “An inshore fishing zone and permitted number of inshore fishing zones” for each type of inshore fishing, etc., and the meaning of “an inshore fishing zone and the boundary line of an inshore fishing zone between the coast of the coastline and the coast of Do in the south of the Do in the south of the Do in 10.”

In full view of the above provisions of the former Fisheries Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, the “fence of the Gyeongnam-do and Jeonnam-do”, which is the boundary of the operation area of the fishing area of the fishing area of the fishing area of the fishing area of the fishing area of the fishing village line, shall be deemed to refer to the boundary of the jurisdiction of the Gyeongnam-do and Jeonnam-do, which

Meanwhile, Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that “previous” shall apply to the determination of the boundary of a local government’s jurisdiction. In light of the legislative history of Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, the criteria for “previous” are successively set up to the first enacted legal provisions, and thus, the boundary within the jurisdiction of the local government as of August 15, 1948 may be deemed the original standard. The boundary of a local government’s jurisdiction over public waters shall be determined first by the said criteria. The boundary of a local government’s jurisdiction at August 15, 1948 ought to be determined first in accordance with the said criteria. Accordingly, the issue of fact-finding to confirm the existence and form of a maritime boundary at the time of the determination (see, e.g., Constitutional Court en banc Decision 2009Hun-Ra5, Sept. 29, 201).

The lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, found the Defendants guilty of all the charges of this case on the ground that the maritime boundary on the topographical map in 1973 most adjacent to August 15, 1948, among the State’s basic map (land-type map) issued by the National Land Geographic Information Institute, was the “do-do boundary on Gyeongnam-do, Gyeongnam-do,” which is the boundary line of the instant permitted fishing operation area, and the Defendants directly and all their employees were engaged in fishing beyond the said maritime boundary line.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and there is no violation of the principle of no punishment without law, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the determination of operating areas and the Do

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

In light of the circumstances in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendants had the intent to operate the instant permitted fishing zone beyond the boundary line of the latitude-do and Jeonnam-do, and that even if the Defendants were to be aware that such operation did not constitute a crime, such mistake cannot be deemed to constitute a mistake in the law with legitimate grounds.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to intentional or unlawful acts as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)