A. Fact-misunderstanding (Defendant B) Defendant B received education on the prevention of illegal fishing operations through a locked fishing boat conference, etc., and Defendant B did not conduct illegal fishing operations for seafarers.

As such, it was not negligent in giving due attention and supervision necessary for the prevention of violation.

Nevertheless, since the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, it erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 3 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Article 69 of the Fishery Resources Management Act regarding Defendant B’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts where a representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other worker of a corporation or individual commits an offense falling under any of Articles 64 through 67 in connection with the business of the corporation or individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions.

However, it is stipulated that a corporation or an individual shall not be negligent in giving due attention and supervision to the relevant business in order to prevent such violation. In such a case, the issue of whether a corporation or an employee, etc. neglected the duty of due care or management and supervision shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances related to the relevant violation, namely, the legislative purport of the relevant Act, the degree of infringement of legal interests anticipated to violate the penal provision, the purport of preparing both punishment provisions concerning the relevant violation, as well as the specific form of the violation and the degree of damage or result actually caused thereby, the scale of the business of the corporation, the possibility of supervision or supervision over the offender, and the measures actually taken by the corporation to prevent the violation.