어촌ㆍ어항법위반
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the facts charged is a person in charge of the management of fixed assets of the director general of the division in charge of the D Association located in Incheon po-gun C.
Any person who intends to use or occupy fishery harbor facilities shall obtain permission from the managing authority of the fishery harbor.
Nevertheless, from May 2014 to July 10, 2016, the Defendant, without permission, installed one container in the area of the E-Ground E-fishing port in Incheon Cheongjin-gun, Incheon (ro 9M, 3M, 2.5M) and used it as a marine life rescue unit and a vessel waiting room.
Accordingly, the defendant occupied the water stuff, which is a fishery harbor facility, without permission.
2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly selected and investigated by this Court, the Defendant occupied the above fishery harbor facility without permission only by the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor.
It is insufficient to recognize it.
① Since the container installed in the above fishery harbor facility (hereinafter “instant fishery harbor facility”) is owned by the D Association (hereinafter “instant association”), the Defendant occupied the instant fishery harbor facility as a container owner.
subsection (b) of this section.
② No evidence exists to deem the Defendant as the said person who installed a container.
③ Since the instant association, around July 11, 2016, intended the container to be moved out of the instant fishery harbor facility to be used by its members F, the Defendant cannot be said to have occupied the instant fishery harbor facility as a container user.
④ As the chief of the general affairs division of the instant association, the Defendant, from June 2015 to June 1, 2015, was in charge of the instant association’s work, such as in conversations with public officials of the Vindication-gun at the time of ordering the instant association to restore to its original state, and requesting F to remove it. However, it is difficult to deem the Defendant as an occupation offender
3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime, and thus, the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act is followed.