2. It is recognized that the defendant, who made a judgment, led to the confession of the crime of this case, is against the defendant, and the defendant does not have the same criminal record.

However, the crime of this case, however, is captured, dismantled, and sold by minging, dismantling, and minging, which is a fishing gear prohibited with other accomplices. Such crime is detrimental to the purpose of legislation of the Fisheries Act that prohibits the capture, sale, etc. of certain fishery resources for the purpose of protecting fishery resources and managing them efficiently, and there is a need to strictly regulate it. The crime of this case is committed according to prior planning and role sharing in order to take monetary profits, and it is not good that the crime of this case is committed according to the nature of the crime, and it is not good that the amount of minging (5 E) and 13 Era (13 E) illegally captured, and it seems that the defendant does not have any benefit acquired by the crime of this case. In full view of all the factors of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the status and role of the defendant in the crime of this case, the age and character of the defendant, the circumstances of the crime of this case, the circumstances after the crime of this case, etc., the above argument by the court below is not justified.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.