The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant’s establishment in each of the instant fishing vessels (D and E) was an APP plate, but the record of the instant case reveals that the Defendant’s establishment in each of the instant fishing vessels (D and E) was EPP, and thus, corrected as above.

The installation itself does not constitute “a modification or repair affecting the strength, watertightness, or fire safety of a hull due to a main body of a ship” or “a modification of the details stated in a fishing vessel inspection certificate” or “a modification that may affect the airworthiness of a fishing vessel or the maintenance of safety of human life due to a marine accident, etc.” It is difficult to view that it has any impact on the vessel’s “stightness”, and the Defendant was acquitted on the grounds that the prosecutor’s proof is insufficient.

B. The prosecutor of the judgment prior to remand filed an appeal on the ground that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

Before remand, Article 27 (1) 1 of the Fishing Vessels Act does not delegate the specific contents to be stated in the fishing vessel inspection certificate to the subordinate statutes.

Since there is no delegation of the Fishing Vessels Act, the gross tonnage shall not be deemed to fall under the contents stated in the certificate of inspection of fishing vessels under Article 27 (1) 1 of the Fishing Vessels Act.

The court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor's appeal on the ground that punishing the Defendant against the violation of the Fishing Vessels Act is against the principle of criminal law.

(c)

The prosecutor of the judgment of remand filed an appeal on the grounds of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the judgment of the court before remanding, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court before remanding, and remanded the case to this court agreement.

2. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principles) extended the closing area by fixing the e-mailplate board to a part of the upper part of the structure of the fishing vessel owned by the Defendant, and thereby, the gross tonnage of the said fishing vessel was changed.