If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The Defendant is the owner and captain of a view fishing vessel B (4.89 tons) of the view fishing vessel (4.89 tons) in the Southern High Military.

The owner of a fishing vessel shall undergo a regular inspection, interim inspection, special inspection, temporary navigation inspection, etc. by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries concerning the facilities of the fishing vessel, and shall not use a fishing vessel which has not undergone an inspection for navigation or fishing operation.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on November 9, 2015, went through the above B without undergoing a regular inspection even though the term of validity of the fishing vessel inspection certificate issued by the above B is over the Do and it is not possible to use it for navigation or fishing. Nevertheless, on January 4, 2016, the Defendant: (a) went through the above B 26 times in total from around 12:53 to January 5, 2016 by entering the place at which the new interest rate was set at the place at which he was set at that place; and (b) using it for navigation by entering the same place at around 12:53 on the following day.

Accordingly, the defendant used a fishing vessel which did not undergo a fishing vessel inspection for navigation.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (applicable to confirmation of specifications of violating ships B and inspection certificates of fishing vessels);

1. Relevant Article 44 (1) 4 and Article 21 (1) 1 of the Fishing Vessels Act concerning facts constituting an offense, and the selection of a fine for negligence;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Although the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order was delayed for three months, the Defendant had been under regular inspections for the period of three months, and had been under operation as a result of criminal facts, it was considered in favor of the Defendant that the Defendant had been under regular inspections and did not result in a serious tort, such as voluntary remodeling of fishing vessels.

However, a fine like the order shall be determined by taking into account the criminal records of the defendant's like crime, the frequency, period, etc. of operation without undergoing regular inspections.