Defendant

Defendant

Kim Jong-Gyeong

Attorney Park Ha-young

Gwangju District Court Decision 2008 High Court Decision 522 Decided December 24, 2008

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The Defendant did not have engaged in large trawls by using a PP protruding, development board, and Hegel device. However, the Defendant was exempted from the part of the tow line, and the part of the tow line, which was turned into the sea, and the part of the tow line and its part was turned into the sea, and the object on which the control line, ○○○, a control line, was affixed with a PP PP net line and development board, which the ○○ho Lake, was sealed, was not used in the △ at the time of the instant operation.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

Since there is no direct evidence that the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged in the instant case, used a large trawls fishing gear without obtaining permission at the time and place, there is no direct evidence to the effect that the Defendant carried out a fishing operation using a large trawer fishing gear, the core of the instant case is whether it was lost or dumped in the △ Lake where the PP net and the development board

Therefore, the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below's decision and the court below's judgment and the evidence duly adopted and examined: ① outward line is connected to the tugboat through the transition diverse; there is a transition dives attached to the port line remaining in △; whereas ○○○ line does not have a transition dives attached to the port line formed by ○○ho Lake, which appears to be the rest of the line that ○○○’s diverse line was cut from the port line (67 pages of the trial record, evidence No. 29,30 pages of the trial record) and that ○○○○○○’s divers’ divers divers divers divers to the extent that it could not be seen that ○○○○ divers divers divers divers divers vegeted to the extent that ○○ divers veget was installed at the time of ○○ divers k’s.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendant's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)