Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person engaged in the fishery, and the defendant should obtain a fishery license to operate the Kim Farming fishery and install Kim Farming Facilities. However, on November 16, 2010, the defendant installed 20 lines of illegal Kim farming in the area where he did not obtain approximately 3.0km away from about 400 meters away from the southwest-gu, Jindo-gun's name on November 16, 201.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Photographss and photographs of the scene of detection;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes of each investigation report (in addition, such as a re-certificate, etc., attachment of maritime records 2008, 2009, 2009) shall apply;

1. Relevant Article 97 (1) 1 of the Fisheries Act concerning facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment.

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

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant obtained a fishery license in 2005, and the head of fishing village fraternity installed facilities in the area designated by him/her, and continued to set up the facilities in the area designated by him/her, and thus, denied his/her criminal intent.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, the area where the defendant installed the illegal Kim-type facility was continuously controlled since 2009. At that time, the facility of this case was not controlled at that time, and the defendant also stated that the defendant was under control on November 16, 2010 when he was investigated by the police at the time when he was investigated by the police, and was under control on November 16, 2010, the defendant did not install the Kim-type facility of this case in light of the defendant's assertion in this court, unlike the defendant's assertion in this court, at around 2005, when he was distributed a legitimate aquaculture license, the facility of this case was installed only in November 2010, and there was no fishery permit or distribution of fishing village fraternity at that time, so it is sufficient to find that the defendant was aware that he did not have a fishery right.

Therefore, the plaintiff's objection.