The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendants used or occupied fishery harbor facilities stipulated in the main sentence of Article 38(1) of the Fishing Villages and Fishery Harbors Act, as they carried out and transported soil and rocks on a bridge line by using her heavy equipment when they anchored in order to transport soil and rocks. As such, the Defendants are obliged to obtain permission from the fishery harbor managing authority.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants not guilty on the ground that the Defendants’ act of this case was merely reported, and the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) around May 31, 2017 and the same year as Defendant A entered in the facts charged;

6. The court found the Defendant not guilty on the charges of this case on the following grounds: (a) although it is recognized that he/she has installed a red business trip (20 x vertical 20 m) in E in order to transport the stone to the “F construction site” located in the Gu of Ansan-si in the Gu of Ansan-si, a member of the Gu of Ansan-si, which is being constructed at the Sinsan-si around 27. In this case, it falls under Article 38(1)2 of the same Act, “if a vessel intends to anchor or anchor in the outer port area (excluding the landing area of a breakwater) of the breakwater, etc., the vessel is obligated to report to the fishery harbor management authority; and (b) it does not constitute a matter subject to permission.

B. The summary of the facts charged in this case’s judgment is as follows: Defendant A around May 31, 2017 and the same year

6. On July 27, 200, the company set up an official trip (20 x 20 m in width) in E located in D and occupied it without permission. Defendant B Co., Ltd. committed an act of violation as described in paragraph 1 with respect to the duties of representative director A. Thus, it is examined whether Defendant A installed an official trip in E and occupied fishery harbor facilities without permission.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, Defendant A was on May 31, 2017 and the same year.

6. 27. The fact that the branch line was anchored for about 8 hours in the E water zone.