beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.
Defendant
C shall be punished by fine for negligence of KRW 9,000,000.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s failure to impose an additional collection of the value of the catch captured by the Defendants in violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act (Defendant B: 12,831,048,010 won, Defendant C: 10,420,780,690 won) on the Defendants in violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act is unreasonable because the sentence is too uneasible.
B. Defendant C’s punishment (the penalty amounting to KRW 10 million) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.
2. We examine ex officio the part of the judgment below regarding the operation of mutual assistance to Defendant C ex officio.
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: A around January 7, 2009, at the sea near the east of the east of the east coast, and A, at the same time, demanded N, the captain of the fishing vessel, to collect the fry by clarifying the fry, etc. of the fishing vessel, and upon request from N, who is the captain of the fishing vessel (109 tons, racing cargo) to leave the port of the fishing vessel, and by using the fry to gather the fry by using H’s trawls fishing gear; A captured 250 households (as approximately 12,500 g), and delivered 2.5 million won to N in return for mutual assistance.
2) A, around January 9, 2009, went on the sea near the east of the east coast and took the 180 households ( approximately 9,000 g) around H such a day by using H’s trawls fishing gear in the same manner as above 1) and then delivered N KRW 2 million in return for mutual assistance.
3) Defendant C, an employee of Defendant C, used a fishing vessel with the help of fishing fishing business in order to enhance the effect of fishing as described in the above (i) and (ii) with respect to the Defendant C’s business.
B. As to the above facts charged, the lower court: (a) applied Articles 69, 64 Subparag. 3, and 22 of the former Fishery Resources Management Act (amended by Act No. 13270, Mar. 27, 2015); (b) applied Articles 64 Subparag. 3 and 22 of the Fishery Resources Management Act to Defendant C, but (c) applied Articles 69 and 64 of the former Fishery Resources Management Act (amended by Act No. 13270, Mar. 27, 2015).