A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 600,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is C's owner who is D's employee.

A person who intends to capture a fireworks using a pain in the inshore at the time, shall comply with the standards of the scam of each type of fishery business determined by the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, but D, around 06:30 on August 16, 2012, shall leave the port for the operation at the North Korean port in Yanam-do, Jeonnam-do,

9. 8. 10:00, Mapo-gun, Incheon Spo-gun, arrived at sea approximately 25 nautical miles (G/Fix 36-59N 125-30E) from the Spo-gun of Incheon Spo-gun, with a net of approximately 200 m20 m20 m20 m2 at a minimum of 65 m20 m2 on the same day, at approximately 16:00 m20 m2 on the same day.

The Defendant, as his employee, committed the above-mentioned violation in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning suspect examination of D;

1. A photographic of a violation of the relevant water cop specifications (C);

1. A statement of detection;

1. Application of statutes on a fishery permit, fishery inspection certificate, and ship's nationality certificate;

1. Article 69, subparagraph 4 of Article 65, and Article 23(1) of the former Fishery Resources Management Act (amended by Act No. 11567, Dec. 18, 2012) concerning criminal facts

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

1. Judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant asserted that, at the time of the instant operation, he responded to the public official in charge, who was asked to relax the transit standards, and that there was a newspaper article to the same effect around that time, and that there was a mistake that the Defendant would be alleviated the transit standards, and that there was a justifiable reason in such mistake.

2. The judgment was examined, and the defendant caused the crime of this case as a result of the above mistake.

Even in light of the above evidence, the above assertion is rejected as it is difficult to acknowledge the facts that there is a justifiable reason.