The evidence No. 1 (four articles) shall be confiscated from the defendant.

On February 15:30 on February 29, 2012, the Defendant captured fishery resources using approximately 20 fish nets equivalent to about 1kg, such as cambling, etc. using 3 double nets ( approximately 50m in length, approximately 1.5m in width) in the rivers of Chungcheongbuk-gun C, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and in a manner of catching approximately 20 fish nets equivalent to about 1kg, such as cambling, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of such objects;

1. Article 65 subparagraph 5 of the Fishery Resources Management Act and Article 23 (3) of the same Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Penalty of one million won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day);

1. Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act of the Suspension of Pronouncement of Sentence (hereinafter referred to as the following favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Whether the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 68 (1) of the Fishery Resources Management Act constitute two or more self-defluences, and the defendant and defense counsel asserted that the self-defluences used by the defendant do not constitute "second or more self-defluences" prohibited by the Fishery Resources Management Act. However, the part referred to as "the pre-defluences" is limited to the size of the self-defluences, and can be seen as falling under the type of self-defluences, as long as the fishery resources management law prohibits two or more double- or more self-defluences without the size of the self-defluences, it cannot be an exception to the anti-defluences. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

In addition, the defendant and his defense counsel argued that the above self-reliance has been permitted because the public officials related to the fishery of the Young-gu Office stated that the use of the self-reliance network was possible, and therefore there was a justifiable reason to mislead the defendant that the defendant's act was not a crime. However, the witness D, E, and F related public officials stated that there was no other means that the defendant would be able to use the self-reliance network in this court, and that it is proved otherwise.