The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendants of the grounds for appeal are erroneous in the misapprehension of facts in the judgment below which acquitted the Defendants, even though they were not in compliance with the movement order, as long as the vessels of the Korea Coast Guard did not move the vessels within the prescribed time limit even though they were under the order, regardless of the possibility of complying with the movement order.

2. Where a defect is deemed null and void as an administrative disposition, no administrative punishment may be imposed on the ground that breach of duty under an order arises (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do1109, Nov. 10, 201). As the court below properly states, Defendant B Co., Ltd. received a vessel repair report from the head of Sinpo Regional Fisheries and Fisheries Agency on Jan. 25, 2016 while performing remodeling works in D, but the said notification was received on Jan. 26, 2016, but it was impossible to repair the said vessel to move the vessel to a place that does not hinder the operation of the harbor, but there was no explicit request for repair order, and the Defendant was issued a large-scale order to move the said vessel from the Korea Coast and Fisheries Agency to 30 days of the same month, and on the other hand, Defendant B Co., Ltd. received an order to move the said vessel from the Korea Coast and Fisheries Agency to 30 days of the same month, which appears to be null and void by 160 meters of E.14 meters of the same vessel.