[1] The purpose of the Fisheries Act to set the operating zone at the time of permission for inshore fishing, and whether the fishing vessel permitted for inshore fishing has been engaged in fishing in an area excluded from the operating zone of inshore fishing beyond the permitted operating zone (affirmative)

[2] Whether the abolition of the Fishery Promotion Act prohibiting inshore fishing in the coastal waters and its enforcement decree affects the inshore fishing zone (negative)

[3] Whether the adjustment of operating areas under the Fisheries Act is deemed to have occurred by obtaining a certificate of shipment under the Fishing Vessels Act from the market in the area excluded from the operating zone of inshore fishing (negative)

[4] Whether the change of a fishing vessel's port of loading can be seen as a change of a fishing zone (negative)

[5] In a case where a license-based fishing vessel is allowed to be used as a licensed fishing vessel or a fishing vessel for communal fishing business in an area where the operation of inshore fishing itself is not allowed, whether the license-based fishing vessel in the above area can be deemed to be permitted (negative)

[6] The case finding the defendant guilty of engaging in inshore fishing operations in the inshore sea in Jeonnam-do, where a fishing vessel obtained a fishery permit by making it an inshore fishing zone in the Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do

[1] The Fisheries Act and the Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources delegated thereto consider the characteristics of the inshore fishing and the characteristics of the offshore fishing method, etc. In order to achieve the objectives of regulating and coordinating fisheries, they limit the operation area of a certain fishing vessel to one of the above three places: Incheon Metropolitan City and Gyeonggi-do, Chungcheongbuk-do, and Jeollabuk-do, and in the event that a fishing operation is conducted in another area beyond the permitted operation area, even though the area did not infringe on the rights of other fishermen concerning the operation area, it shall be deemed that the act is punished in accordance with Article 52(1)3 of the Fisheries Act and Article 17(1) and Article 30 subparag. 4 of the same Decree, even if the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries grants a permit for offshore fishing operation, if the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries grants a permit for offshore fishing operation, it shall not be deemed that a permit for offshore fishing operation area has been restricted to one of the above three places, and the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries shall not be deemed to have jurisdiction over the area under Article 52(1)3 of the same Decree.

[2] As long as an act of operating an inshore fishing outside the permitted fishing zone is punished, even though the Fishery Promotion Act and its Enforcement Decree, which has functioned to prohibit the operation of inshore fishing in the waters adjacent to the coast of household affairs, do not prohibit the operation of inshore fishing in the waters adjacent to the west-do coast, if a fishing vessel licensed to operate an inshore fishing in the west-do with the area permitted by the Ordinance on the Protection of Marine Resources, was engaged in operation in the area adjacent to the west-do, it would not change the fact that the fishing operation in the area permitted by the Ordinance on the Protection of Marine Resources would not

[3] Even though Article 53(3) of the Fisheries Act provides that the adjustment of the operating zone between Cities/Dos is possible, permission for adjustment of the operating zone between Cities/Dos shall be made only by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, and Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act provides procedures necessary for the adjustment of the operating zone upon delegation by the above Act. Thus, insofar as permission procedures for adjustment of the operating zone by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries have not been taken after the application for adjustment, it shall not be deemed that the adjustment of the operating zone under Article 53(3) of the above Act was made with the receipt of a certificate of shipment under the Fishing Vessels Act from the mayor of Jeonranam-do, while the fishing vessel which obtained permission for offshore fishing is in receipt of a certificate of shipment under the Fishing Vessels Act, and this shall not be deemed to be different even if there is no offshore fishing net owner who is agreed to the adjustment of the operating zone in Jeonnam-do, or the new purpose of Article 53(3) of the Fisheries Act is recognized to have been needed for offshore fishing zone in

[4] Since Jeonnam-do Sea was excluded from the offshore-net fishing zone, even if the port of registry of a fishing vessel permitted for offshore-net fishing under the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources was changed into the permitted zone into Jeonnam-do, it cannot be deemed that the fishing vessel was permitted to change Jeonnam-do into the fishing zone or to permit offshore-net fishing in the offshore waters of Jeonnam-do for such reason.

[5] Even if Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act and Article 26 of the Rule on the Management of Fishing Licenses and Fishing Grounds, etc. provide that a fishing vessel with the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the permit for the inshore fishing

[6] The case finding the defendant guilty of engaging in inshore fishing operations in the inshore sea in Jeonnam-do, where a fishing vessel obtained a fishery permit by making it an inshore fishing zone in Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do

[1] Article 52(1)3 of the Fisheries Act, Article 17(1) and Article 30 subparag. 4 of the Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources / [2] Article 17(1) and Article 30 subparag. 4 of the Fisheries Act / [3] Article 53(3) of the Fisheries Act, Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, Article 13(3) of the Fishing Vessels Act / [4] Article 17(1) of the Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources, Articles 13(1) and 17(1) of the Fishing Vessels Act / [5] Article 27 of the Fisheries Act, Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, Article 26 of the Rules on the Management of Fishing Vessels and Fishing Grounds / [6] Article 52(1)3 of the Fisheries Act, Article 17(1) and Article 30 subparag. 4 of the Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources.

[1] [4] Supreme Court Decision 99Do2917 delivered on February 25, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2879 Delivered on August 13, 2002 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do463 Delivered on December 10, 199

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 2001No1780 delivered on February 1, 2002

The appeal is dismissed.

1. According to Article 52 (1) of the Fisheries Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), if the Act provides that the following matters may be prescribed by the Presidential Decree for the enforcement of fisheries, the period of fisheries, and the types of marine animals and plants that may be caught and gathered under subparagraph 3, the fixed number of permits for inshore fisheries, the restriction on the volume of fisheries, and the prohibition on fisheries, shall be prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (hereinafter referred to as "the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources") 17 and its [Attachment 12] or 19 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources (hereinafter referred to as "the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources") are not prescribed by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries for the sake of the protection of permitted inshore fishing zones. It is so long as the Act provides that the Act on the Protection of Marine Fishing Grounds and the Decree on the Protection of Marine Fishing Grounds 1, 2008 provides that the Act on the Protection of Marine Fishing Grounds and No. 97 of the Act on the Protection of Fishing Sea Water.

In addition, as long as the act of operating an inshore fishing zone outside the permitted fishing zone is punished for the above reasons, even though the Fisheries Promotion Act and its Enforcement Decree, which functioned to prohibit the operation of inshore fishing in the coastal waters, are abolished, and no provision prohibiting the operation of inshore fishing in the inshore coastal waters is established, if a fishing vessel licensed for inshore fishing in the area permitted by the Ordinance on Protection of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, is engaged in operation in the offshore fishing zone in the west-do, it shall not change even if it is not an operation in the non-operating zone, and even if Article 53(3) of the Act provides that the adjustment of the operating zone between Cities and Dos may be possible, it is clear that the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries is allowed only to adjust the operating zone in the above Article 46 of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Promotion Act, and it shall not be deemed that the adjustment of the operation zone in the south-west coastal fishing zone is not permitted through the adjustment of the operation zone in the above Article 5 of the Act, even if the operator of the fishing zone issued with delegation of the above Act.

Furthermore, as seen above, it is difficult to view that a fishing vessel permitted for inshore fishing as its permitted area under the Protection Ordinance has a fishery permit changed Do to its permitted area for offshore fishing, or that offshore fishing is permitted in Do beyond Do as its permit for offshore fishing with its fishing with its fishing vessel (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Do2917, Feb. 25, 200; 2001Do2879, Aug. 13, 2002; 2001Do2879, Aug. 16, 200; 2001Do 2001Do 2879, etc.). Thus, even if the fishing vessel permitted for inshore fishing with its permitted area is changed to its entire area, it cannot be seen as having been permitted to permit offshore fishing with the opinion of the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries to use the permitted offshore fishing vessel as its permitted area for licensed fishing and communal fishing, it cannot be seen as having been permitted in its entire area. Thus, it cannot be seen as having been permitted in its entire area.

2. The court below rejected the defendant's argument that the defendant's act of operating inshore fishing in the Jeonnamdo with a fishing vessel licensed for offshore fishing in the territorial sea of Jeonnamdo is guilty, and since the Fishery Promotion Act and its Enforcement Decree were abolished, the defendant's act of operating inshore fishing in the Jeonnamdo with a fishing vessel is not a violation of the operation zone, and since the loading port of the above fishing vessel is changed to the time of fishing, it is not a violation of the operation zone, the adjustment of the operation zone under Article 53 (3) of the Act is made, or the change of the operation zone is made in the Jeonnamdo with the operation zone. The court below rejected the defendant's argument that applying Article 52 (1) 3 of the Act, Article 17 (1), and Article 30 subparagraph 4 of the Protection Decree to punish the defendant's violation of the operation zone. In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the law as to prohibition of offshore fishing zone or adjustment of the law or punishment.

The defendant's ground of appeal is without merit since it is merely against the judgment of the court below due to a different independent opinion.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)