A. The punishment of the court below (the additional collection of 1 year, 46 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination mincing, mincing, which is an internationally banned endangered species, and in need of protection, the act of distributing illegally captured mincs requires strict punishment. The crime of this case is unfavorable to the Defendant, in light of the background, method, and scale of illegal distribution, since the mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing mincing cing mincing mincing mincing cing mincing mincing a separate place that professionally handles mincing mincing mincing mincing mincs, and processed and stored it, and sold it to the general public through the above mincing minc ring, and the Defendant had the history of punishment twice as the same kind of crime

On the other hand, in full view of all favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the court below's judgment should take into account the equity in the case of a crime of violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act (the term of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and the suspended sentence of two years), the fact that all of its errors are recognized and reflects the defendant's family relation, age, sex, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the sentence of the court below is deemed to be within a reasonable and appropriate scope, and it cannot be deemed unfair or unreasonable because it is too heavy.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, all of them are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.