The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal principles, thereby making a mistake of finding the Defendant not guilty.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the owner of the coastal fishing boat C (4.93 tons, two crew members on board) of the Busan Coast Guard Co., Ltd. and engaged in fishery as the captain.

A person who intends to operate a coastal complex fishery business using a power-driven fishing vessel of less than 10 gross tons shall obtain permission from the head of the competent Gun.

Nevertheless, on February 25, 2017, at around 13:00, the Defendant captured 15 mal and 3 math of thirts at the market price using 20-meter long-distance fishing with the outside line, without obtaining a license for combined coastal fishing at the 20-meter radius from 14:50 to 15:50 of the same day, which is the 14:50 on February 25, 2017.

B. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the grounds as delineated below.

1) It is reasonable to interpret that punishment under Articles 97(1)2 and 41(2) of the Fisheries Act is limited to “where a person operates fisheries without permission” as it is, as it is, the language and text.

Therefore, even in cases where aquatic animals and plants are captured without permission, they cannot be punished pursuant to the above provisions.

2) The Defendant is recognized as a person who obtained a coastal self-fishing permit and who was engaged in fishing without permission as stated in the instant facts charged (i.e., fishing that belongs to a coastal complex fishery) and was under control.

(1) However, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant left the port for one seafarer and the permitted coastal network fishery, with two fishing market lines during which he left the port.