The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Defendant

A, D,.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As stated in paragraph (3) of the facts charged in this case, Defendant D (De facto mistake) imported by Defendant D to Defendant A (hereinafter “the instant order”). The lawful order issued by Defendant D’s lawful distribution certificate is a lawful order.

B. Defendant E (Definite) did not have conspired or participated in the act of distributing or trading illegal scrap machines of this case with Defendant A, D, and the instant illegal scrap machines.

C. The Defendants (unfairly unfair) committed by the lower court against the Defendants (one year and four months of imprisonment; one year and two months of imprisonment; one year and six months of imprisonment; one year and six months of imprisonment; and six months of imprisonment) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding Defendant D’s assertion of mistake, it is reasonable to deem that the instant order was an illegal order that was illegally captured in violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act or the Fisheries Act. Therefore, on a different premise, the Defendant D’s assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

① First of all, we examine whether the instant scrap aircraft is issued a certificate of distribution of the said scrap aircraft, which is the most important factor to determine whether it is a legitimate scrap aircraft.

As to this, Defendant D asserts that the instant device was lawfully issued a distribution certificate by purchasing the instant device from BE and CV.

The evidence consistent with the argument of the Defendant D lies in the legal statement of the lower court in the BE that the Defendant Company sold a legitimate senior machine to the Defendant D and delivered a lawful certificate of distribution to the entire Defendant D, and there is a statement at the investigation agency of the Defendant Company A, which stated that the Defendant Company was issued one copy of the distribution certificate while purchasing the senior machine from Defendant D, but lost the certificate.

However, the BE sells the equipment to the defendant D on the written statement submitted to the police.