수산자원관리법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The judgment of the court below on the gist of the grounds of appeal is unreasonable since there was an error of law by misunderstanding the fact that the seizure was ordered, and by misunderstanding the legal principles as to confiscation, the sentence of confiscation was not imposed, and the declaration of additional confiscation was omitted.
2. Article 457-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "No sentence more severe than that of the summary order shall be imposed on a case for which the defendant has requested formal trial." However, in the summary order, where only the defendant has requested formal trial without issuing the sentence of confiscation in the summary order, a new pronouncement of confiscation by the court below violates the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do2020, Dec. 8, 1992). Thus, even when considering all the reasons alleged by the prosecutor, it cannot be said that there was any error in the judgment of the court below against which the sentence of confiscation has not been imposed, or that the sentencing is unreasonable.
Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.