수산자원관리법위반
1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months.
2. The defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The part of the charge of violating the Fishery Resources Management Act due to Defendant B’s violation of the prohibition of capture and gathering among the facts charged against Defendant B, cannot be deemed as having relation to Defendant B’s violation of the fishery resources management Act, which became final and conclusive on November 5, 2016. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the blanket one crime, which thereby acquitted Defendant B of this part of the charges. (2) The lower court’s sentence against Defendant B of unfair sentencing (one year of suspended sentence for four months of imprisonment) is unreasonable, because it is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Defendant
A’s petition of appeal on September 9, 2019, submitted by the counsel of the lower court, asserts that mistake of facts and unreasonable sentencing are grounds for appeal. However, in the statement of appeal on October 25, 2019, which was directly submitted by Defendant A, the statement of grounds for appeal stated that “the prior action is in contravention of the recognition of all criminal acts, because it is against good faith,” and Defendant A and Defendant A’s counsel asserted only on the date of the first instance trial as grounds for appeal.
In addition, in light of the fact that the summary of the oral argument dated January 17, 2020 also states that “a prior request is made in consideration of the circumstances that make a confessions in the original trial differently from the original trial,” it is reasonable to deem that Defendant A’s defense counsel submitted by the original trial to be erroneous in the part on which the assertion of mistake is made, or that Defendant A withdrawn such assertion.
In addition, even if there is an assertion of mistake of facts, the judgment of the court below is just and there is no error of mistake of facts.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the lower court’s judgment on the Prosecutor’s assertion 1 regarding the misapprehension of the legal doctrine became final and conclusive on November 5, 2016.