Ga. Violation of the Fisheries Act

(b) Violation of fishery resources management Act;

(c) A tide protection tank in violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act.

(d) Forgery;

1. (a) . B. gambling (67 - 1) . - fishery

Residential Incheon Vindication Group

Jeonnam-nam District in Reference domicile

2. (a) . (c) ○○○ (60 - 1) , fishery products cultivation business;

Residential Incheon Vindication Group

Reference domicile Incheon Southern-gu

3. Mad. Mad. Mad. (6 - 1) , fishery

For the purpose of maintaining a residence, a net square for the same;

Standard place of registration in leisure-si;

4. d. door-to-door (70 - 1) and fishery products distribution business.

Housing City, Silsi, Doro

Seoul High Court Decision 201

Doctrine (prosecution), leapline, and Yhoman (Public trial)

Attorney Kim Jong-sung (Attorney Park Jong-sung, Counsel for the defendant Park Jong-sung)

Attorney Lee Im-soo (Apon for Defendant ○○○)

Attorney Hong Sung-hun (Defendant 1, 100, 100, 200)

May 13, 2016

Defendant Park ○ shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year, by a fine of 5,00,00 won, and by imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and a fine of 6 months.

1. A person shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months, 000 won, 000 won, Ma-○, and Do-○.

Where Defendant Park ○○ and ○○ fail to pay the above fine, each of the 100 won and 000 won shall be refunded as one day.

Defendants are confined in the workhouse for a period of time.

However, as to Defendant ○○, ○○, and ○○, and as to the day this judgment became final and conclusive, each of the above two years from the day this judgment became final and conclusive.

The execution of imprisonment shall be suspended.

Defendant 1’s order the community service for 80 hours each to Defendant 1’s ○ and ○○.

To order the defendant Park ○-○ and ○○ to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

On July 23, 2015, and July 26, 2015, 2015, with respect to Defendant Park ○-○. Fishery resources concerning non-performance of a discharge order

The violation of the Management Act shall be acquitted.

Punishment of the crime

Criminal Power

On January 5, 2015, the defendant Park Jong-○ was sentenced to a grace period of two years in imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of fraud at the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court for six months, and the judgment on December 30, 2015 became final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

Defendant Park ○○ is the master of ○○○○ (never loading, diving fishing vessel, April 97 tons), the Defendant’s right ○○ is a person who operates a sea seeds and seedlings cultivation plant in the name of “○○ Fisheries”, the Defendant’s work site managing ○○○○○, the Defendant’s door ○○, and the person engaged in the fishery products distribution business, such as high-light boats, and the Defendant’s door ○○○, and the ○○○○ and the ○○○ are each diving.

1. Defendant’s gambling ○

(a) Violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act (Prohibition against capture and gathering);

If the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries deems it necessary for the propagation and protection of fishery resources, he/she may determine the zone, depth, body length, weight, etc. of fishery resources, the period of prohibition of capture and gathering, and accordingly, the period of prohibition of capture and gathering was from July 1 to August 31, 200, but the defendant illegally collected kids during the period of prohibition five times as follows.

(1) On July 23, 2015, the Defendant departed from ○○, and arrived at the place where 83 of the Yajin-gun fishing village fishing village fraternity in Incheon would be located, and collected an amount equivalent to 1,160 (market price 1,508,000 won) together with the lock-in Kim○, Ma○, and Ma○○.

(2) On July 24, 2015, the Defendant collected a large amount of KRW 1,640 (market price of KRW 2,132,00) using the same method at the same place.

(3) On July 26, 2015, the Defendant collected a large amount of KRW 2,880 (market price of KRW 3,744,00) using the same method at the same place.

(4) On July 27, 2015, the Defendant collected a large amount of KRW 2,240 (market price of KRW 2,912,00) using the same method at the same place.

(5) On July 28, 2015, the Defendant collected a large amount of KRW 2,160 (market price of KRW 2,808,00) using the same method at the same place.

(b) Violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act (non-performance of a discharge order);

A fishery supervising official or police officer may order the release of fishery personnel captured and gathered in violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act.

Although the Defendant was ordered to release a key cocks illegally collected during the period of prohibition of collection from 10 to the Incheon Coast Guard P - 10 meta in the time and place set forth in paragraph (2) of Article 1-A, the Defendant did not comply with the order.

(c) Violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act (sale of Illegal Catchs);

No one shall sell any fishery resources captured or collected, in violation of an order issued under the Fishery Resources Management Act or the Fisheries Act, or any products thereof.

The Defendant, like the entry in paragraph (1) of this Article, sold a kib, which was collected five times, at around that time, to Do○, from the head of the Jinjin-gun, Incheon po-gun, Jin-gun, Jinak-gu, Seoul, as the market value at each market price.

(d) Violation of the Fisheries Act;

No person shall de facto control over the operation of fisheries permitted by another person.

After obtaining permission for diving fishing in the name of ○○○○, and approval for fishing vessel company of the potter Military Administration, the Defendant actually controlled the operation of the fishery by gathering kis over five times using ○○-ho, the date and time stated in each item of paragraph (a) of Article 1, and the place at each item of paragraph (1), and raising profits equivalent to the sales proceeds of kising.

2. Defendant’s competence ○○

(a) A fishing aid in violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act;

Although the Defendant was aware of the circumstances that Park ○○ would illegally collect kibs during the gold-term period using ○○○○○’s title, the Defendant aided and abetted the Defendant to violate the Fishery Resources Management Act by providing the false content of the name of the head of the fishing village fraternity in the name of the head of the fishing village fraternity (which was held on July 19, 2015, that the temporary total price of the fishing village fraternity was held on July 19, 2015, and that the right ○○ and the fishing village fraternity entered into an event contract in relation to subparagraph 83) in the minutes of the temporary total minutes of the fishing village fraternity as of July 19, 2015, by submitting it to the fishery division of the Jinjin-gun Military Office with the signature and seal affixed on July 22, 2015, by obtaining the approval of the use of the fishing vessel of ○○○, a license for the fishing village fraternity, and thereby facilitating the Defendant’s violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act.

(b) Fisheries Act violations;

A person who has obtained a fishery business permit shall not have another person actually control the operation of the fishery business.

The Defendant, as described in paragraph (d) of Article 1, had gambling ○○, de facto control over the operation of the fishery.

3. Defendant’s fixed name ○

The Defendant, even though ○○ was aware of the fact that he was subject to investigation by being subject to the control from police officers of the Incheon Coast Guard, on the ground that Park○-○ illegally collected the kib during the time and place set forth in each item of paragraph 1(a) at the time and place of golding, he had received a request from Park○-○ and received a request from the police officers of the Incheon Coast Guard to create a document for tending to transplant the kib scam.

Accordingly, on August 3, 2015, at around 00: 00, the Defendant found in the future fisheries operated by the new ○○○ located in the coast wharf in Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon, and prepared a false written confirmation to the effect that ○○ sold approximately 20,000 kibs to ○○ in around April 2014, as required by ○○○.

Accordingly, the defendant has forged evidence on another person's criminal case.

4. Defendant’s door-○

The Defendant, even though ○○ was aware of the fact that he was subject to investigation by being subject to the control from police officers of the Incheon Coast Guard, on the ground that Park○-○ illegally collected the kib during the time and place set forth in each item of paragraph 1(a) at the time and place of golding, he had received a request from Park○-○ and received a request from the police officers of the Incheon Coast Guard to create a document for tending to transplant the kib scam.

Accordingly, on August 13, 2015, the Defendant purchased Dagjin-gun (the shipment of poman-gun-gun, 8.55 tons) and carried out approximately KRW 1,000 of the key 1,00, which he had been in custody in the double gymnas, after being able to carry three his own employees, and then spread the said key gym to the neighboring sea, and then cut back the gymnas and spread the gymnas by using the cellular phone function. The gymnas ○ took photographs of this Chapter using the cell phone function.

Accordingly, the defendant has forged evidence on another person's criminal case.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant Park Jong-○'s partial statement, defendant's right ○○, defendant's right ○○, defendant's right ○○, and door ○○'s each legal statement

1. Legal statement of the name of the witness ○○○;

1. Defendant 2’s interrogation protocol as to Defendant 1’s gambling ○, right ○○, door ○, and party ○○, each of the second prosecutor’s interrogation protocol as to Defendant

Park○, ○, ○○ each third prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of the prosecution, ○○, and Kim○, each prosecutor’s office on ○○ and ○○

Examination protocol of suspect, protocol of prosecutor's statement about ○○

1. Each police's protocol of interrogation of the accused ○○○ (the first, second, and second time)

1. Each police protocol on Kim Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man-Man

1. A written statement of Kim○-○, and each written statement of Defendant Park Il-○

1. Business Report (Control of Illegal Fishing, Investigation Record 11 pages), Report on Occurrence (The Fishery Resources Management Act, 20 pages);

The details of detection (23 pages of the investigation record), the order of release (26 pages of the investigation record), the explanatory note (36 pages of the investigation record), the vessel

copy of the contract (50 pages of investigation record), copy of the event contract (62 pages of investigation record), use of fishing vessel (fishing ground officer)

L) Notice of approval (70 pages of investigation records), investigation report (any opinion submitted to the Vindication Military Office, the Incheon District Court, etc.)

Confirmation of the authenticity of evidentiary materials, such as submission documents, and 228 pages of the investigation records

1. A copy of a statement of opinion submission, written confirmation, statement of transaction, invoice, list of accounts by seller, photograph, etc. (investigation);

Records 200 to 219 pages

1. On-site documentary evidence photographs (17 pages of investigation records), ○○○ (locked fishing vessels), photoics (27 pages of investigation records), diving machines;

No. 00 of fishing vessels, photoics (38 pages of investigation records)

1. Previous records: Criminal records, written judgments, etc.;

[Defendant Park ○-○’s defense counsel held that Article 26(3) of the Fishery Resources Management Act does not apply to cases where a farmer captures or gathers fish products from a fish farm.” However, Defendant Park ○-○’s defense counsel is aware that he was engaged in collecting fish products at the time or in collecting fish products. Thus, Defendant Park ○-○’s defense counsel is not liable for the crime of violating the Fishery Resources Management Act.

To apply the prohibition clause stipulated in Article 26(3) of the Fishery Resources Management Act to the Defendant Park ○○○, the term “in the event that a farmer captures or gathers fish farming products from a fish farm,” and “in the event that the farmer captures or gathers fish farming products,” the term “as to whether the farmer constitutes a fish farm” and “a farmer” means a person who runs a fishery business catching or gathering marine animals and plants by artificially gathering marine animals and plants or installing a fishing vessel or fishing gear for this purpose (see Article 2 subparag. 2, 7, and 13 of the Fisheries Act) by using a fishing vessel or fishing gear or installing a facility for the purpose thereof. Defendant Park ○ is not only a person who rents a fishing ground from ○○○, but also does not fall under a legitimate proprietor of the fishery business, so that the fishery business operator does not fall under the case where the fishery business operator does not fall under the case where the fishery business operator engaged in the fishery business, and thus, the fishery business operator does not fall under the case where the fishery business operator does not fall under the case of the fishery business operator.

In addition, in light of the statement of ○○○○, Gab○, who captured, taken, or taken cultivated things, it appears that the Defendant was clearly aware of the fact that the Gab○ was not likely to have been deep in the fishing ground at the time of the Gabing of ki, and that the Dob○ was not deep in the kib, and that the Dob○ was captured and taken, with the knowledge that the Dob○ was not a kid fish, at the time when the Dob○ was captured, taken “the Dob○○ was captured, taken, or taken as a cultivated thing” or “the Dob○○○○ was captured, taken, taken, or taken as a witness to be found as a witness in this court, and the Dob○○○’s statement. Accordingly, the Defendant Parkb○ did not have any reason to exclude

Therefore, the aforementioned defense counsel’s assertion is not recognized, and all facts constituting this part of the crime are recognized to the defendant Park ○.

(B) In addition, Defendant 1’s defense counsel argued that it is unreasonable to punish Defendant 1 on the ground that Defendant 1 was in violation of the provisions of the Fishery Resources Management Act, rather than Defendant 1’s violation of the provisions of the Fishery Resources Management Act, since Defendant 2’s defense counsel did not violate the provisions of the Fishery Act, it is not that Defendant 2 violated the provisions of the Fishery Resources Management Act, and that Defendant 2 violated the provisions of the Fishery Resources Management Act, it cannot be denied on the ground that Defendant 1’s defense counsel asserted that Defendant 2 violated the provisions of the Fishery Resources Management Act on the ground that Defendant 2’s defense counsel asserted that “the determination of Defendant 2’s non-compliance with the conditions of fishing vessel use (fishing vessel fishing vessel use) was determined by the vice- officer

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Defendant Park ○: Each of the former Fishery Resources Management Act (amended by Act No. 13270, Mar. 27, 2015, which was enforced on September 28, 2015; hereinafter the same shall apply) Articles 65 subparag. 1 and 14 (a) of the former Fishery Resources Management Act; Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 16 (a) of the former Fishery Resources Management Act; Articles 67 subparag. 1 and 16 (a point of failing to comply with a discharge order); Articles 64 subparag. 1 and 17 (a point of selling illegal catches; choice of imprisonment); Articles 198 subparag. 5 and 32(1) of the Fisheries Act (a)

Defendant 2: Article 65 subparag. 1 and Article 14 of the Fishery Resources Management Act, Article 32(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act (the act of aiding and abetting a violation of the prohibition of capture or gathering), Article 98 subparag. 5 of the Fisheries Act, and Article 32(1) of the Fisheries Act (the act of aiding and abetting a violation of the prohibition of control by a third party, the selection of imprisonment)

Defendant Jeong-○, Do-○: Article 155(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment)

1. Mitigation and mitigation;

Defendant ○○: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)6 of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant Park ○: the latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant Park ○-○, ○○: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant Park ○-○, ○○: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant’s right ○○, Ma-○, Ma-○: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant 1-○, door-○: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant Park ○, ○, ○○: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant Park ○-○’s argument

As to the non-performance of a discharge order and the violation of the doctrine of fishery resources officers due to the sale of illegal catches, Defendant Park ○ and attorneys-at-law asserted to the effect that this crime was not committed on the ground that the kids collected by the Defendant at the time were not taken unlawfully, and that the kids collected by the Defendant did not constitute a crime, and that such mistake was justified, and thus, cannot be punishable.

Whether a person’s act under Article 16 of the Criminal Act constitutes a justifiable reason for misunderstanding that the person’s act was not a crime under the law, should be determined depending on whether the person did not recognize the above legal nature of his act as a result of failure in spite of the possibility that the person could have been aware of the illegality of his act if he did not make a serious effort to avoid the illegal act due to the person’s intellectual ability. The degree of efforts necessary for recognition of illegality should be determined differently according to the circumstances of the act, the person’s perception ability, and the social group to which the person who committed the act belongs (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3717, Mar. 24, 2006, etc.).

In the case of Defendant Park Jong-dae, in light of the following facts: (a) in the notice of approval for the use of a fishing vessel by the potter-gun (a fishing control vessel), Defendant Park Jong-gun: (b) the period of prohibition of capture and gathering was “from January 1 to August 31, 200,” and the purport to comply with it was rescheduled to sufficiently recognize such circumstances; and (c) in light of the right ○○, the statement by the conciliation branch, and the evidence by the conciliation branch, Defendant Park Jong-○ did not seem to have been aware of the fact that he did not have any kidy, which was recovered at the time, was not a crime under the law; and (d) it does not seem that there was a justifiable reason for misunderstanding that his act was not a crime under the law; and therefore, (e) Defendant Park Jong-○ and the defense counsel’s assertion as above are without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant’s gambling ○

In light of the following: (a) the Defendant, knowing that he can sell a key tamper during the period of prohibition of capture and gathering, was forced to take an illegal act; (b) the Defendant continued to take it by neglecting his control over several enforcement agencies; and (c) the Defendant did not comply with an order to release the control agency by asserting that his collection was lawful; (d) the Defendant violated the Industrial Act and several times of punishment for violating the Fishery Resources Management Act; and (e) the period of suspension of execution under the Fisheries Act was in violation of the Fisheries Act at the time of the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant’s nature and criminal intent cannot be deemed to be somewhat weak: Provided, That the Defendant is in a relationship between fraud and concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Act on Criminal Records and the Act on Criminal Records, and thus, there is a need to consider the case of concurrent judgment and equity.

2. Defendant’s competence ○○

The Defendant leased a fishing ground to Park○○ and the mediation place, obtained approval from the head of Jinjin-gun to use a fishing vessel (fishing ground management vessel), and aided and abetted Park○○○ in such a process, and considering the fact that considerable profits have been gained in such process, the Defendant cannot be deemed as a minor act, but the Defendant recognized all of the crimes, and the Defendant did not have criminal power, etc. shall be punished as ordered by taking into account the fact that the Defendant

3. Defendant 1-○, Do-○

The Defendants forged evidence to pretend that ○○ had been transplanted to assist and fishing ground, and actively produced such forged evidence to the investigation agency and the court, and attempted to obtain such forged evidence, and it cannot be said that the nature of the crime and the criminal facts are light: Provided, That in light of the fact that the Defendants recognized all of the crimes, and that the forged evidence of the Defendants did not affect the instant disposition, punishment shall be determined as ordered by the Defendants.

Defendant Park Jong-○’s acquittal

1. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant was subject to the control from the date and time of criminal facts No. 1-A, (1), (3), the Incheon Coast Guard St-59, P-100, etc., and did not comply with the order to release the kidgs illegally collected during the period of prohibition of gathering.

2. Determination

On the other hand, to be recognized as the facts charged, there should be an order to release the control agency at the time and place indicated in the facts charged. However, evidence submitted by the prosecution alone is difficult to acknowledge that there was a discharge order at the same time and place, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise (in particular, P - 100 heads of YO who controlled Defendant Gamboo on July 26, 2015 did not issue an order to discharge by asserting that Defendant Gamboo was a witness at the time of the appearance in this court.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is decided as per Disposition by the decision of not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Kim Jong-soo