1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court found the Defendants guilty on the ground that the maritime boundary line on the Gyeongnam-do and Jeonnam-do as of August 15, 1948 under Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, which is the basis for the sea area between the border line of 107 degrees in the latitude-do and Gyeongnam-do (hereinafter “instant permitted fishing zone”), from the south of the latitude-do and Gyeongnam-do, the extension line of 107 degrees in the latitude-do from the border line of Gyeongnam-do and Ulsan Metropolitan City and the intersection line of the coastline as stipulated in Article 40(1) [Attachment 3] of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, was the maritime boundary line of Gyeongnam-do as of August 15, 194, which is the basis for the maritime boundary of Gyeongnam-do as of August 15, 194.

The Defendants’ allegation in this part of the grounds of appeal is, under the principle of the principle of the principle of the legality, that “the boundary line of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do

However, examining the records in light of the relevant legal principles, the court below erred by violating the principle of no punishment without the law or by misapprehending the legal principles on determination of maritime boundaries under the Enforcement Decree of Fisheries Act.