The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,200,00.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. 항소 이유의 요지( 법리 오해) 피고인은 자신이 소유한 어선의 상부 구조물 폐위장소( 閉圍場所) 용적을 증가시킴으로서 총톤수를 증가시켰다.

The increase in gross tonnage is subject to temporary inspection because the contents of the fishing vessel inspection certificate are changed.

Nevertheless, since the defendant used a fishing vessel for navigation or fishing without undergoing a temporary inspection, the violation of Article 44 (1) 4 and Article 21 of the Fishing Vessels Act is established.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in law.

2. In light of the fact that the prosecutor of the facts charged submitted in the lower court the “application for permission to amend the indictment on February 6, 2017” and “application for permission to amend the indictment on February 7, 2017,” respectively, and the latter stated the place and method of excessive extension compared to the former, the same as the latter mentioned in the facts charged in the lower judgment, and the latter received directly at the fourth trial date, and the latter directly from the date of the fourth trial, the latter appears to be a clerical error in the “decision to grant permission to amend the indictment” in the fourth trial protocol of the lower court.

The defendant is the owner and captain of a fishing vessel C(9.77 tons) in a common fishing vessel.

A person who intends to change the details entered in a fishing vessel inspection certificate, such as a gross tonnage, shall undergo a temporary inspection, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and shall not use a fishing vessel which has not undergone an inspection for navigation

Nevertheless, on October 29, 2015, the Defendant specified the place for excessive expansion as “the landing place located in the Dong-dong in Si-young,” but in light of the Defendant’s police statement (79 pages of investigation records) and investigation report (99 pages), etc., it is apparent that it is a clerical error in “the landing place located in the Dong-dong in Si-young, Si-young,” and the Defendant also testified on this premise, and thus, it is corrected without any changes in the indictment.

of the above fishing vessel.