(a) Whether the public waters provided for in Article 7 (1) 1 of the Inland Fisheries Development Promotion Act include a river which is applied or applied mutatis mutandis by Acts and subordinate statutes concerning rivers (affirmative);

B. Whether an act of occupying a river site subject to the application or application of the River Act without permission constitutes a violation of the Public Waters Management Act (negative)

A. The public waters defined in Article 2(1) of the Public Waters Management Act excludes rivers subject to the application or mutatis mutandis application of the Act on the Designation, Management, and Use, etc. of Rivers. As the River Act was enacted and implemented with respect to the designation, management, and use of rivers, it is only intended to exclude the application of the Public Waters Management Act and to apply the River Act with respect to the above matters on rivers, and it is not prescribed on the premise that rivers are not public waters. Thus, the public waters under Article 7(1)1 of the Inland Fisheries Development Promotion Act include public waters subject to the application or mutatis mutandis application of the Act on the Management, etc.

B. Since a river subject to the application or mutatis mutandis application of Acts and subordinate statutes on a river is not subject to the Public Waters Management Act, the act of occupying and using a river site subject to the application or mutatis mutandis application of the River Act without permission does not constitute a violation of the Public Waters Management Act, separate from those constituting a violation of the River Act.

(a)Article 2(1) and Article 4(1)9(a) of the Public Waters Management Act;

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Go Young-gu

Chuncheon District Court Decision 89No501 delivered on October 12, 1989

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

Defendant’s ground of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed)

1. Article 7 (1) 1 of the Inland Fisheries Development Promotion Act defines that fisheries cultivating marine animals and plants is a fisheries cultivating marine animals and plants by dividing certain waters and other facilities on a public waters or private waters designated as a development area with respect to fish farming subject to a license from the Do Governor, and Article 2 (1) of the Public Waters Management Act provides that the provisions of this Act provide that the provisions of Article 2 (1) of the Public Waters Management Act provide that the provisions of this Act provide that the provisions of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning rivers shall not apply or shall not apply mutatis mutandis to the sea, water, lakes, and

However, it cannot be interpreted that the public waters of the above inland Fisheries Development Promotion Act are the public waters of the Public Waters Management Act.

Article 2(1) of the Public Waters Management Act provides that a river subject to the application or mutatis mutandis application of the Act on the Management of Public Waters shall be excluded in the definition of public waters under Article 2(1) of the Public Waters Management Act, since the enactment of the River Act is implemented with respect to the designation, management, and use of a river, it is merely for the application of the Public Waters Management Act to the above matters, etc. as to the river, and it does not mean that the river is not a public waters under the premise that it is not a public waters. In other words, such interpretation is clear even when the definition of public waters under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Public Waters Management Act is made. In other words, the public waters under Article 7(1)1 of the Inland Water Fisheries Development Promotion Act include a river subject to the application or mutatis mutandis application of the Act on the Management of Public Waters, and it is not acceptable to the contrary opinion that the transmitting fish farming business of this case

However, as seen earlier, a river subject to the application or application of the Act on the Management of Public Waters is not subject to the regulation of the Public Waters Act. According to the records, the river of this case can be seen as a river subject to the application or application of the River Act (see the permission for installation of river flow water and structures bound in investigation records). Thus, the act of occupying and using such river site without permission does not constitute a violation of the Public Waters Management Act, aside from what constitutes a violation of the River Act. Therefore, the lower court erred in taking the Defendant’s act of occupying and using the river site of this case as a violation of the Public Waters Management Act.

The defendant's argument on this part is with merit.

2. Article 37 subparag. 4 of the River Act provides that a person is prohibited from dumping large quantities of earth and rocks or dusts on a river, or from doing any act that is likely to affect the width and depth of a river. Thus, an act of dumping large quantities of earth and rocks or dusts on a river shall be deemed to constitute an act of prohibited act without examining whether such act affected the width and depth of a river.

There is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or incomplete deliberation in the judgment below.

As seen above, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the application of the law as to the violation of the Public Waters Management Act, and this constitutes concurrent crimes with other criminal facts, and thus the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)