All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that each sentence (a fine of KRW 3 million is imposed on the Defendants, and a fine of KRW 700,000 is imposed on the Defendants) declared by the lower court to the Defendants.

2. The Defendants recognized the instant crime and against the mistake, and the Defendant A committed the instant crime at the time when there is no institutional device to legally and economically process the waste hole in the case of Defendant A, and the amount of the collected fall short of the volume, etc. are favorable to the Defendants.

However, the act of dumping waste hole into the sea is likely to pollute the marine environment, and the act of changing the holder of the fishery right registered in the public register from the actual manager is caused by various problems, such as avoiding legal responsibility, and the nature of the crime is not weak (including the case where Article 49 (1) or 60 of the Fisheries Act applies mutatis mutandis to a person who falls under any of the following subparagraphs, among 1.0hr registered in the name of Defendant B, 1hr among 0.5hr and 2.0hrr of the aquaculture registered in the name of Defendant B, is alleged to the purport that Defendant A constitutes the actual owner, but even though the aquaculture license was registered in the name of Defendant B, it is recognized that Defendant A occupied and managed and operated the aquaculture, and thus, it does not affect the establishment of a crime of violating the Fisheries Act.

(2) The scope of de facto control over the operation of the relevant fishery under paragraph (1) shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries. Article 36 (Limit of control by another person) of the Rules on the Management, etc. of Fisheries shall be prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.