Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who operates a general fish farm in a mutual name with a 10,959 square meter in three lots outside Chungcheongnam-gun, Hongsung-gun, and three lots.

Any person who intends to install or manage other water pollution sources shall obtain reports on the installation of other water pollution sources and operate his/her place of business.

Nevertheless, during the period from June 1, 2010 to June 11, 2013, the Defendant operated the place of business without obtaining the report on the installation of water pollution sources in the above D model.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A written statement;

1. Report on results;

1. Data on civil petitions filed by a ridge farm and other water pollution sources;

1. Results of the examination of river water from the Public Health and Environment Research Institute of Chungcheongnam-do;

1. Public notification of standards for water quality of fish farming facilities;

1. On-site investigation report;

1. Report on the result of business trip for failing to report inland fisheries;

1. The application of guidelines for the investigation of natural property of the Hongsung Military and the formulation of restoration plans;

1. Article 78 of the relevant Act on the Punishment of Criminal Crimes and Articles 78 subparagraph 12 and 60 (1) of the Act on the Selective Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Claims that deviate from the legislative limits of delegation;

A. The gist of the claim is examined in accordance with the attached Table 1 related to Article 2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality and Aquatic Ecosystem Conservation Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Water Quality Act”).

1. A summary indictment was filed on the premise that it constitutes a “general fish farm pursuant to Article 11 of the Inland Water Fisheries Act” among fish farming facilities for fishery products. The inland fish farming provision under Article 9 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Inland Water Fisheries Act, which was delegated pursuant to Article 11(1) of the Inland Water Fisheries Act, goes beyond the bounds of delegation of fishing in “inland waters” and is not effective. Accordingly, in the case of the Defendant, it is subject to the regulation of the Inland Water Fisheries