The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the Defendant was unaware of the fact that C and D did not use an unauthorized type of net fishing gear, the lower court convicted the Defendant on the premise of a conspiracy relationship with C and D, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of a co-principal’s assertion of mistake of facts, it is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intention of co-processing and the intent of co-management. Even if there was no process of conspiracy among co-offenders, if the combination of intent to commit a crime is achieved by co-processing in a certain crime in a successive or implicit manner, then the conspiracy relationship is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, even a person who did not directly participate in the act of conspiracy is held liable as co-principal for the act of another co-principal

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2000Do3483, Nov. 10, 2000; 2007Do235, Apr. 26, 2007). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and this court and the records of this case are recognized as follows.

① At the time of the instant case, C/D, which actually collected exploss with an unauthorized net fishing gear, was aware of the fact that “the Defendant would take exploss using an unauthorized net fishing gear.” The Defendant was requested to take exploss from the preceding day of the instant case. The price for exploss collected was stated in line with the facts charged in the instant case to the effect that “the Defendant would have received the exploss from the Defendant.” On the same day, E/F, and the investigative agency, stating to the effect that “the exploss collected, were sold to the Defendant and received the price from the Defendant.”