When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who goes on board a fishing ground, who is a person in charge of fishing of the P, E, F, G, and H of the port-time fishing vessel C (D, E, G, and H) of the port-time fishing vessel.

Administrative agencies may, if necessary for the control of fisheries, sanitary control, maintenance of order in distribution, or coordination in fisheries, order the restriction or prohibition of any operation area for inshore fisheries, and no person shall violate this order.

The operation zone of the fishing zone net fishing is the sea area between the boundary line of the latitude-do and Ulsan-do and the boundary line of the coastline of the coast line of 107 degrees, respectively, from the south of the latitude-do to the Do boundary line of the latitude-do.

Nevertheless, at around 05:00 on March 19, 2016, the Defendant, under the direction of the C Line at the defensive port of Ulsan-dong, Ulsan-gu, the Defendant started to work for the purpose of fishing, and operated in a manner of throwing away and neting the baselines of the baselines, which were loaded on the e (27 tons North latitude) and F (27 tons East longitude) at approximately 3 miles in the south East-dong, East-gu, Busan-do, and the 09:00 on the same day, from the 09:0 on the same day.

As above, the Defendant violated the administrative authority’s order on the operation zone of the net fishing on board.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by the police;

1. Each investigation report (with respect to matters stated by a suspect, details of confirmation of a suspect, details of control, etc.);

1. Evidentiary photographs;

1. C Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on vessel documents for vessels;

1. Article 98 of the Fisheries Act and Article 61 (1) 2 of the same Act concerning the selection of applicable criminal facts and punishment;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserts that since the defendant left the area of operation after the operation after being pushed away from the area of operation, the defendant's defense counsel did not intentionally deviate from the operation area, but caused such result by negligence.

However, each of the above.