According to Article 94 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 4252 of Aug. 1, 1990), where an agent, employee, or other employed person of a juristic person or individual commits an offense falling under the provisions of Articles 88 through 90 or 93 in connection with the business of the juristic person or individual, not only shall the offender be punished, but also the juristic person or individual shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding provisions of the above Act. The juristic person or individual under the above provision of the above Act refers to a person who operates fishery or fishery in his own account (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 77Do3528, Dec. 13, 1978; 78Nu389, Dec. 13, 1978).

However, according to the court below's records, although the defendant is the owner of the fishing vessel of this case in the statement of pleading submitted to the court below, he did not employ the defendant as the captain of this case, but did not operate the fishing vessel of this case by employing the defendant as the captain of this case, and the non-indicted is employed as the captain of this case after obtaining the permission from the defendant to lease the fishing vessel of this case and employ the defendant as the captain at the court below, and also submit materials related thereto. Thus, the court below should clarify this point and determine whether the defendant is an individual under the above provision of this Act. Thus, the court below did not conduct any deliberation and determination. This decision did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of the above provision of the law, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.