A. On the day of the instant crime, the Defendant: (a) paid attention to the Working Group Chairperson of the Jindo-gun located in Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun (hereinafter referred to as the “Jannam-gun”) to the effect that the network was used as “the spawn at the end of the ground”; and (b) was engaged in the operation in the spawn field located in the Namnam-gun located in the Namnam-gun located in (hereinafter referred to as the “Yannam-Gun dry field”); (c) the Working Group Chairperson or the spawn were foreigners, and was under the control of the region, despite the foregoing care as a foreigner.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is improper even though the defendant did not intend to commit the crime of this case.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 3,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. The following circumstances revealed through the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court: (i) the Defendant asserted that “the Defendant was engaged in the work in the field of the ship at the time of enforcement of the control,” namely, “the Defendant was taking care of the net indicated as “the last side of the land,” but there was no objective evidence to acknowledge it; (ii) the Defendant stated that the Defendant was engaged in packing in the field of the ship located in Jindo-gun, Jindo-gun at the time of enforcement of the control; (iii) the Defendant did not present any such assertion at the court of the court below; and (iv) the Defendant appears to have no net other than the network indicated as “the last side of the land” at the time of the control of the field of the ship at the time when the control was conducted (in the case of the control site, the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to control the Defendant’s assertion in light of the fact that there was no objective evidence to acknowledge it.