Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the captain of Musdo Coastal Fishing Vessels B (7.93 tons, on board) of Musdo Coastal Fishing Vessels B (7.93 tons, on board) of Musdo Coastal Fishing Vessels D (7.93 tons, on board) of Musdo Coastal Fishing Vessels D (7.93 tons, on board).

Any person who intends to engage in a fishery business falling under the coastal fishery business with a fishing vessel using a power-driven fishing vessel of less than eight gross tons shall obtain a permit for each fishing vessel or fishing gear from the Mayor/Do Governor for each fishing vessel or fishing gear, and the above two vessels shall conduct a fishery business only for all remaining coast sources after obtaining a permit for the coastal network fishery from the head of Gun of complete Do, and shall not conduct a fishery business on other

Nevertheless, on September 9, 2013, the Defendant and C jointly carried out fishing operation with the right-holder network for the purpose of catching the destroyed goods at the sea on September 7, 2013, approximately 1.7 Ethmb in the Northwest-do located in the Northwest-gun, the Northwest-do located in the Northwest-gun, the Northwest-do, and around September 13, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Investigation report (the confirmation of suspect C's statement about the user fish-gu);

1. A copy of a shipment certificate (D), a copy of a fishing vessel inspection certificate (D), and a copy of a fishing permit (B, D);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs produced and seized, as at the time each discovery is made;

1. Article 97(1)2 and Article 41(2) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 12541, Mar. 24, 2014); Article 30 of the Criminal Act; the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The act of conducting fishery activities in an area where the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground of the sentencing of the instant crime is without permission is not good in light of the legislative intent of the law of fisheries aiming to promote the sustainable development of fisheries and democratization by efficiently managing fishery resources and waters.

However, considering the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant acknowledges and reflects his crime, the degree of benefits that the defendant acquired by the crime of this case, the status and role of the defendant, and the criminal records of the defendant.