All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since there is no customs and legal conviction that recognized the maritime boundary line on the topographical map of 1973 as the boundary line of Gyeongnam-do, which is the boundary line of the instant permitted area, by mistake of facts as to the Do boundary line of Gyeongnam-do, and Jeonnam-do, which is the boundary line of the instant permitted area, as well as the practice and legal conviction regarding the maritime boundary line on the Do boundary line of Gyeongnam-do, 1973, it cannot be deemed that the administrative customs law was established regarding the maritime boundary line on the Gyeongnam-do, 1973, with the boundary line of Gyeongnam-do, which is not the boundary line of Gyeongnam-do, as well as the Do 1973, on the Do 1973, which is the boundary line of Gyeongnam-do, the legal boundary line on the Do 1973, which is the boundary line of Gyeongnam-do Do , which is the boundary line of the instant permitted area. Moreover, the standard of Do 1920, Do Do Do 197.