Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Han Han-il (Court of Prosecution) and Kim Jong-ok (Court of Justice)

Law Firm Nam-do et al.

Gwangju District Court Decision 2011 High Court Decision 963 Decided November 15, 2012

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

All the costs of the trial by the court below and the trial by the court are borne by the defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Since the Defendants captured a key dog in order to manage the stage of operation after obtaining approval of each of the vessels of this case as the management vessel of the stage of operation, the judgment below convicting the Defendants of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. [Although the Defendants have asserted as to the operation zone in the statement of grounds of appeal (2) but on the premise that they have captured a key dog in order to manage the stage of operation of the vessel of this case, it appears to the purport of the above assertion.]

2. Determination

Even if the Defendants were able to evaluate the use of each vessel of this case as the vessel in charge of the operation of the vessel of this case, ① if the Defendants were discovered on June 10, 201, the Defendants did not have any choice but any more than 13,130 U.S. (0 U.S. 6,200 and 6,930 U.S.). According to the reasoning of the lower court’s testimony of Nonindicted 1 and 2, the fishermen, including Nonindicted 1, did not know that the Defendants were forced to capture and manage the vessel of this case, and the Defendants did not have any choice and management of the vessel of this case, and the Defendants did not have any choice but did not have any choice but any choice and management of the vessel of this case. The Defendants did not appear to have any choice and management of the vessel of this case. The Defendants did not appear to have any choice and management of the vessel of this case. The Defendants did not appear to have any choice and management of the vessel of this case to have any choice and management of the vessel of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the court below and the court below rendered a decision as to the burden of litigation costs incurred in the trial by applying the main text of Articles 191(1), 190(1), and 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the court below did not render a judgment ordering the Defendant to bear the litigation costs, but it is not subject to Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act that prescribes prohibition of disadvantageous change because the burden of litigation costs is not a punishment, so the court below held the burden of litigation costs by adding the litigation costs to the court below) and the order.

Judges Park Gi-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ju