The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Fishing Vessels Act among the facts charged in the instant case.

In other words, Article 44 (1) 4 and Article 21 (1) 4 of the former Fishing Vessels Act (amended by Act No. 14510, Dec. 27, 2016); Article 47 (1) 6, Article 63 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Fishing Vessels Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 244, Jun. 28, 2017); and Article 63 (1) 1 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Fishing Vessels Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 244, Jun. 28, 2017); and Article 63 (1) 1 of the former Fishing Vessels Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 14510, Dec. 27, 2016); and

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the statutory principle of crime and the limitation of delegation legislation, or by exceeding the bounds of free conviction due to violation of logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

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