Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 14, Defendant 15, Defendant 16, Defendant 17, Defendant 18, Defendant 19, and Defendant 20 did not pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

1. Defendant 1

From around 12:30 on July 10, 201 to 14:40 on the same day, the Defendant captured approximately 100 km away from 1math day (Fix 34-35-16N, 127-57-72E) to the sea area south-do along the boundary line of Gyeongnam-do, Jeonnam-do (Fix 34-35-16N, 127-57-72E) to operate in violation of the operation area by using the ○○○ line with fishing gear.

2. Defendant 2

Defendant 1 captured approximately 100 km of the destroyed net net fishing gear using ○○○ line at the same time and place as that of paragraph (1), and operated the fishing zone in violation of the fishing zone.

3. Defendant 3

From around 16:30 on July 10, 201 to 17:40 on the same day, the Defendant captured approximately 255 km away from the border line of Gyeongnam-do to the sea area south-do, Jeonnam-do (Fix 34-35.206N 127-57.380E), using the line of △△△△△, and operated the fishing zone in violation of the fishing zone.

4. Defendant 4

Defendant 3 captured approximately 255 km of the destroyed fishing gear using the △△△ Line at the same time and at the same place as that of paragraph 3, and operated the fishing zone in violation of the fishing zone.

5. Defendant 5

On July 10, 201, from around 17:20 to 17:50 on the same day, the Defendant captured approximately 50 km away from the Do boundary line of Gyeongnam-do, Gyeongnam-do, to the sea area of 1.7 miles-do (N 34-35.28, N 127-57.74, N 127-57.74) to operate in violation of the fishing operation area, by means of throwing and lifting the fishing gear for the freeboard of the baseline.

6. Defendant 6 corporation

Defendant 5 captured approximately 50 km of the destroyed fishing gear in a manner that operates the fishing zone in violation of the fishing zone, using a e.g., a e., a e.g., at the same time and place as the Defendant 5, in a manner that operates the fishing zone.

7. Defendant 7

From around 15:30 on July 10, 201 to 16:40 on the same day, the Defendant captured approximately KRW 7.5 km in violation of the fishing operation area by using the fishing gear at the seat of 3.4 days in the sea beyond 3.4 miles-do (N 34-38-280, N 127-55-950, N 127-950) from the boundary line of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Do of the Gyeongnam-do and the Do of the Do of the Do of the east-do.

8. Defendant 8

The Defendant captured approximately KRW 7.5 km of the destroyed fishing gear in a manner that operates the fishing zone in violation of the fishing zone, using the fishing zone at the time, at the same time, and at the place, the Defendant 7 of the Defendant’s employees, using the fishing zone at the time, at the time, and at the place,

9. Defendant 9

From around 06:00 on July 12, 201 to 07:10 on the same day, the Defendant captured approximately KRW 75 km in violation of the operation area by means of throwing away from approximately 2.3 miles-do (Fix 34-34.815N 127-53.73E) on the sea beyond 2.3 miles-do along the boundary line of Jeonnam-do, Jeonnam-do. (Fix 34-34.815N 127-53.73E) from 06:0 to 07:10 on the same day.

10. Defendant 10

The Defendant captured approximately KRW 75 km in a way that the Defendant, at the same time and place as that of paragraph 9, was engaged in fishing operations in violation of the fishing zone by using the △△△ Line, using a fishing gear.

11. Defendant 12

From around 06:00 on July 12, 201 to 07:20 on the same day, the Defendant captured approximately 10km from around 06:0 on the sea (Fix 34-35-23N, 1271-56-22E) beyond 1.5 miles-do toward the sea area of Jeonnam-do from the border line of Gyeongnam-do, Jeonnam-do (Fix 34-34-35-23N, 1271-56-22E) by using a line of short of about 1.5 miles-do, and from around 08:0 on October 31, 201, from around 08:0 on the same day to around 09:0 on the same day, the Defendant captured an operation area in violation of approximately 2.8 miles-do (Fix 34-132-6N, 127-56-530g) to the sea area of Jeonnam-do.

12. Defendant 11

The Defendant captured approximately 60 km in total of destroyed goods at the same time and place as in paragraph (11), and operated the Defendant in violation of the operation area.

13. Defendant 13

On July 11, 201, from around 13:00 to 16:56 of the same day, the Defendant captured approximately 70 km away from 13:34-226 east 127-205 east 127-205 east 1, to the east-do sea area south-do along the boundary line of Gyeongnam-do, Jeonnam-do (N 34-34-226 east 127-505 east 127-205) to operate in violation of the fishing zone.

14. Defendant 14

Defendant 13 captured approximately KRW 70 km in a way that the employee, at the same time, and at a place as set forth in paragraph 13, the Defendant carried out fishing operations in violation of the fishing zone, by using the chip chip chip chip, using the chip chip chip.

15. Defendant 15

From around 15:00 on July 10, 201 to 15:30 on the same day, the Defendant captured approximately 100 km away from the border line of Gyeongnam-do to the sea area of Gyeongnam-do (N 34-38-670, east 127-56-210, east 127-210) to operate an area in violation of the operation area by catching approximately 100 km away from the Donnam-do to the Donnam-do.

16. Defendant 16

Defendant 15 captured approximately 100 km in a manner that operates a fishing boat with Dog Dog Dog Dogs in a place like paragraph 15 at the same time and at the same place as Dog Dog Dog Dogs.

17. Defendant 18

피고인은 2011. 7. 10. 14:30경부터 같은 날 15:20경까지 경상남도와 전라남도 도 경계선에서 전라남도 해역 쪽으로 약 1.4마일 벗어난 해상(Fix 34-37-377N, 127-56-673E)에서 ▷▷▷ 선단을 이용하여 기선권현망어구를 투·양망하는 방법으로 멸치 약 100kg을 포획하여 조업구역을 위반하여 조업하였다.

18. Defendant 17

피고인은 그 사용인 피고인 18이 제17항과 같은 일시, 장소에서 ▷▷▷ 선단을 이용하여 기선권현망어구를 투·양망하는 방법으로 멸치 약 100kg을 포획하여 조업구역을 위반하여 조업하였다.

19. Defendant 19

From around 14:00 on July 10, 201 to 15:10 on the same day, the Defendant captured approximately 100 km away from 14:0 to 15:10 on the sea area south-do along 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 Republic of Korea

20. Defendant 20

The Defendant captured approximately 100 km in a manner that the Defendant, at the same time and place as the Defendant 19, operated the fishing zone in violation of the fishing zone by using the brea line, using the brea line.

1. Statement and copy of the prosecutorial statement of the Nonindicted Party

1. A statement of detection and a report of detection;

1. Evidentiary photographs;

1. Each investigation report (abundance) shall be attached;

1. Guidance issued by each construction research institute in 1973;

1. Sticks electronic shields;

1. Investigation report (in case of attaching documentary evidence and video editing data);

1. A copy of each inshore fishery permit; and

1. Certificates of fact-finding and reply to each Do Governor;

○ Defendant 1, Defendant 3, Defendant 5, Defendant 7, Defendant 9, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 15, Defendant 18, and Defendant 19: Articles 98 subparag. 8 and 61(1)2 of the Fisheries Act, respectively.

○ Defendant 2, Defendant 4, Defendant 6, Defendant 8, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, Defendant 14, Defendant 16, Defendant 17, and Defendant 20: Articles 101, 98 subparag. 8, and 61(1)2 of the Fisheries Act

○ Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants 11, 12);

Articles 37 and 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse (other Defendants except the Defendant 6 Stock Company);

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Code

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The boundary that is the maritime boundary of the Gyeongnam-do and Jeonnam-do generally refers to the scope of public rights in the area where the autonomy of local governments is within the jurisdiction of local governments, and such boundary is neither a natural boundary nor a customaryly recognized boundary, regardless of any artificial boundary.

In addition, Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act provides that the boundaries of local governments shall be determined by the previous “previous” in determining the boundaries of local governments. In light of the amendment history of Article 4(1) of the Local Autonomy Act, the aforementioned “previous” criteria are successively established legal provisions to the first time, and thus the boundaries of local governments with respect to public waters should also be determined in accordance with the above criteria. Therefore, the boundary line of local governments with respect to public waters should be determined based on the most adjacent administrative boundary line to August 15, 1948 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 200Hun-Ga4, supra). Since the boundary line of public waters under the Act on the Control of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Hun-Ga4, supra) is deemed to exist in the maritime boundary line of local governments without any boundary line of the previous administrative area and customs of local governments with respect to the maritime affairs under the Act on the Control of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20000Do104).

In light of this, it cannot be deemed that it is against the principle of no punishment without the law to determine the maritime boundary of Jeonnam-do and Gyeongnam-do as the maritime boundary based on the nearest topographical map on August 15, 1948 among the topographical maps produced by the land survey division of the Joseon General Do and Gyeongnam-do and the land survey division of the Korea National Land Survey Board or the topographical maps

2. Whether any error in law exists with justifiable grounds.

Article 16 of the Criminal Code provides that "the act of misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding." The purpose of Article 16 of the Criminal Code is that it shall not be punishable if it is generally accepted that an act of misunderstanding that one's act is not a crime but a crime permitted under Acts and subordinate statutes in his own special circumstances and that there is a justifiable reason to mislead misunderstanding. Whether a certain act is justified as a legitimate act should be determined rationally and reasonably depending on specific cases. To recognize a legitimate act, first, it must meet the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, second, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, third, balance between the interests of protection and infringement, fourth, urgency, and fifth, supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do337, Oct. 17, 1998).

In this case, as argued by the Defendants, the Ministry of Health and Welfare stated the view that the maritime boundary line of the islands indicated on the topographical map by the National Geographical Council was intended to prevent the affiliation of the islands in relation to administrative districts, and that the judgment of innocence was rendered on the cases of violation of the Fisheries Act (No. 2008Ga-727). However, the maritime boundary line of the islands by the National Geographical Council was determined not guilty. Since the maritime boundary line of the islands by the National Geographical Council is in itself defined administrative districts, the maritime boundary line of the islands itself has the nature of the boundary line distinguishing the administrative districts. The above case is merely a arbitrary interpretation of the contents of the judgment by the Defendants as different cases, and there is no justifiable reason to believe that the Defendants’ act was not in violation of the operational districts.

Judge Choi Chang-hoon