The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that Article 25(2) of the Fishery Resources Management Act (hereinafter “Act”) requires a person who keeps or uses toxic chemicals to remove foreign substances attached to the fishery resources cultivating fishery resources, fishing gear, or fishing net using toxic chemicals. The above purpose is to say that, regardless of whether the person himself/herself uses fishery resources or to remove foreign substances attached to fishing gear or fishing net, it is reasonable to view that he/she directly or for the purpose of using them for the cultivation of fishery resources or for the removal of foreign substances attached to the fishing gear or fishing net, or for the purpose of using them for the cultivation of fishery resources or for the removal of foreign substances attached to fishing gear or fishing net. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, even if the defendant recognized

2. Determination

A. The principle of no punishment without law requires that crimes and penalties be determined by law in order to protect individual freedom and rights from arbitrary exercise of the state penal authority.

In light of such purport, the interpretation of the penal law must be strict, and it is not permitted to expand or analogically interpret the meaning of the explicit penal law in the direction unfavorable to the defendant as it is against the principle of no punishment without law.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do4230, Nov. 28, 2013). (B)

In light of the following facts and legal interpretation acknowledged by the court below and the court below’s aforementioned legal principles, deeming that the Defendant was exposed to the detection of weapons while carrying weapons constitutes an excessive expansion interpretation contrary to the principle of no punishment without law, and even if the concept of “storage” of domestic affairs is broadly interpreted, there is no provision on punishment for attempted crimes under the above provision, and thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as an act in violation of Article 25(2) of the Act.

1) The Defendant D (9.9.).