The parts against the Defendants are reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,00, and Defendant B.

A. The Defendants’ defense counsel’s 1) part of the violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act (A) and part of the violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act (A) are installed as a sloping slope, and the Defendants’ act using the sloping slope cannot be interpreted as prohibiting the use of the sloping slope of the sloping net fishing in accordance with Article 10(1) [Attachment Table 11] of the former Enforcement Decree of the Fishery Resources Management Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 23201, Jul. 5, 2011; amended by Presidential Decree No. 24455, Mar. 23, 2013; hereinafter “amended Enforcement Decree”), and thus, there is no penal provision for the Defendants’ act. Therefore, deeming the Defendants’ act as a penal provision for the said violation is in violation of the principle of clarity in the principle of no punishment without law, the prohibition of analogical interpretation, and the punishment for the Defendants to the extent that the Defendants had lawfully installed the sloping slope in accordance with relevant statutes before the enforcement

Even if it is interpreted that the revised enforcement decree prohibits the use of the fishing boat boat fishing as a slope, the installation of the fishing boat slope is not a fishing gear, but a fishing boat structure. Therefore, the revised enforcement decree goes beyond the delegation subject of Article 23 of the Fishery Resources Management Act, the mother corporation, and it is established to enhance the efficiency of the fishing boat network and prevent human life accidents. The revised enforcement decree is against the principle of equality as a arbitrary discrimination without reasonable grounds for prohibiting the use of the fishing boat fishing as against the principle of excessive prohibition because the revised enforcement decree is not related to the fishing boat fishing or the fishing boat fishing. The structural change requires complicated and large cost, and the prohibition of use of the fishing boat slope is impossible for the pertinent period, and it violates the principle of excessive prohibition because it is also contrary to the principle of excessive prohibition.

Moreover, the Defendants are the defendants.