The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the systematic and logical interpretation of Article 64-2(1) and (2) of the Fisheries Act, Article 45-3(3) [Attachment Table 3-4] of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act, etc., the limitation on the standard of the relevant physical coin in [Attachment Table 3-4] under Article 45-3(3) [Attachment Table 3-4] of the Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 30621 of Apr. 14, 2020; hereinafter the same shall apply) constitutes “restriction on the scale, etc. of fishing gear” under Article 64-2(1) of the Fisheries Act.

Therefore, it does not violate the principle of no punishment without law to interpret that the act of violating the restriction on the physical coin standard in the above [Attachment 3-4] is subject to punishment under Article 99-2 subparagraph 4 of the Fisheries Act.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is recognized that the defendant had intention to capture not only the roof but also the door.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending facts.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. The gist of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the captain of a fishing vessel B (6.67 tons) for coastal transit fishing at the time of departure.

The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries may restrict the scale, form, quantity and method of use of fishing gear, zones and period in which the use of fishing gear is prohibited, size of net noses, etc. for each type of fishery business permitted, and in cases of fishery business permitted for coastal transit, the fishery business permitted for coastal transit shall not use not more than 35m of net noses, except for roof, falling spads, spads, and fireworks.

At around 17:50 on March 29, 2019, the Defendant captured 10 maws, using a coastal ventilation fishing gear, the average size of which is 24.5 meters, at approximately 0.4 nautical miless from the scarb, red scarbed on the scarb, Hansan-si.

B. The lower court’s determination is that (1) the language and text of Article 99-2 subparag. 4 and Article 64-2(1) of the Fisheries Act, and the Presidential Decree, cannot be deemed as a restriction by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries.