beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part of confiscation against Defendant E shall be reversed.
Defendant
The appeal of A, B, and C and the defendant E.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The seized articles confiscated by the lower court by mistake of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine of Defendant A is not owned or possessed by Defendant A.
Even if so, the above seized articles were confiscated from Defendant A. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding facts.
B. Defendant E’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
However, the court below convicted Defendant E of the facts charged in violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.
2) Since the court below's evidence Nos. 22 through 24, which was confiscated by Defendant E, was not offered to Defendant A, but provided to others, it shall not be confiscated, and there should not be other evidence Nos. 28, 30 through 38, and 153 of air 223 of Nos. 28, 30 through 29 of evidence Nos. 229 and 153 of the evidence No. 29
However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misunderstanding facts, since the above seized articles were confiscated by Defendant E or Defendant A.
(c)
The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: 3 years of probation, observation of protection, Defendant B: 2 years of probation, observation of protection, Defendant C: imprisonment in October, 2 years of probation, 2 years of probation, observation of protection, and Defendant E in August of the year of probation, 5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to Article 100 of the Fisheries Act, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant A’s catches, products, fishing vessels, fishing gear, etc. owned or held by an offender may be confiscated.
The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., evidence Nos. 2 and 52.