The part of innocence on violation of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act shall be reversed.

The Defendant, in violation of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act, committed “lease” of the public waters of this case through H delegated by E, etc., who is the person holding the right to occupy and use the public waters of this case, and such act is prohibited by law. The Defendant is merely merely a “legal site,” and even if it constitutes “legal mistake” under Article 16 of the Family Criminal Act, there is no reasonable ground for lack of any procedure to confirm whether or not the right to occupy and use the public waters of this case can be leased by means of questioning the competent authority, etc., but the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that he did not have any intention to occupy and use the public waters of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act (the legal scenario) was committed by the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant only reported sericultural and man-made fishery to the Seosan City Mayor and collected fishery products using scoo equipment in this case, unlike the method of the above reported fishery. Thus, even if the Defendant reported fishery related to diving fishery, etc., the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not constitute non-fishermen, even though he did not constitute a non-fishermen, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the concept of "fishermen" under the Fisheries Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

In order to newly construct, rebuild, extend, change, or remove a building, etc. on public waters in violation of the Public Waters Management and Reclamation Act, despite obtaining permission to occupy or use public waters from the management agency of public waters, the Defendant is in the vicinity of the Chungcheongnam-gun, which is the public waters.