Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Anndong iron

Attorney General Law Office of Madon Law Firm

Gwangju District Court Decision 2007 High Court Decision 30 decided April 5, 2007

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Since Defendant 3 obtained a permit for inshore fishing from the competent authority, it is possible to operate in the sea area across the country without any restriction, unless it does not fall under a prohibited zone under Article 4 subparag. 9 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources, and it does not infringe on the operation areas of other permitting authorities as stipulated in attached Table 17 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the Protection of Marine Resources, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources, thereby finding the Defendants guilty

2. Determination

Pursuant to Article 52(1) of the former Fisheries Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8377 of Apr. 11, 2007), the following matters may be prescribed by Presidential Decree for the purpose of fishery control, hygiene control, distribution order and other coordination of fisheries, and the limitation or prohibition on the operating area, timing of fisheries, kinds of marine animals and plants that can be captured and gathered under subparagraph 3, and the fixed number of permits for inshore fishing under subparagraph 5, restriction on the volume of vessels, and restriction or prohibition on fishery permits. Article 17(1) and attached Table 12 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources stipulate the fixed number of permits for inshore fishing and the fixed number of permits for inshore fishing in accordance with the delegation of the above Act, the fixed number of permits for inshore fishing under paragraph 1 of Article 52(1) of the former Fisheries Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8377 of Apr. 11, 2007), and Article 52(1) of the former Fisheries Act (Seoul-do) provides for the fixed number of permits for inshore fishing and inshore fishing under consideration of each offshore fishing region.

In addition, the purpose of Article 79 (1) 1 of the former Fisheries Act and Article 4 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources is to propagate and protect marine animals and plants, and Article 52 (1) 3 of the former Fisheries Act and Article 17 (1) of the former Ordinance on the Protection of Marine Resources is to regulate fisheries, control of hygiene, distribute order, and coordinate other fisheries, except for the offshore net fishing operations areas in the inshore waters, and the legislative intent and the scope of application are different, so it does not fall under the prohibition area under Article 4 of the above Decree (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2879 delivered on August 13, 2002).

Therefore, the defendants' assertion that since the defendant 3 obtained a permit for inshore fishing from the competent authorities, it is not a prohibited zone under the above Decree, but can operate in the sea area across the country without any restriction, unless the defendant 3 has infringed on the operation areas of other permitting authorities.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' appeal is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jae-jin (Presiding Justice)