beta
Text
All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)
A. Defendant A received KRW 250,000,000 from May 26, 2016 to June 30, 2017, with Defendant A’s payment of KRW 250,000 to Defendant B and C, granted the right to exclusively collect and sell naturally occurring crypin, which forms the area of the J fishing village fraternity’s old-style fishing K (hereinafter “L”) and M (hereinafter “N”)’s fishing village fraternity’s old-style fishing village fraternity’s fishery business from May 26, 2016 to June 30, and entered into an agreement with Defendant B and C to bear all of the expenses incurred in collecting such naturally occurring crypine, profits, losses, etc., and the act of fishing village fraternity to collect and sell “natural naturally occurring cryp” in the area of “fish farming fishery.” Considering that the fishing village fraternity did not carry on the shellfish farming business at all within the said area, the act constitutes a real lease of the fishery right, since it shall completely exercise control over the fishery right to Defendant B and C.
B. In addition, although the fishery right holder of the NN fishing right is not a J fishing village fraternity, it is a fishery cooperative, the provision prohibiting the lease of fishery right under the Fisheries Act shall also be applied to the defendant A who is a "person who has the fishery right".
(c)
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the Defendants of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Whether the crime of violating the Fisheries Act due to the lease of fishing right is an alien is determined by the lower court (A) and the crime of violating the Fisheries Act due to the lease of fishing right is an alien (Supreme Court Decision 2010No502 Decided November 12, 2010, Supreme Court Decision 2010No 502 Decided February 10, 201). However, among the facts charged in the instant case, the fishery right holder is not the “J fishing village fraternity (Defendant A),” but the “Jin Fishery Cooperative” rather than the “Jin Fishing village fraternity (Defendant A”).
Therefore, the Defendants, who are not fishery rights, are above.