Defendants are not guilty.

1. Defendant A is a person working as the representative director of B, and Defendant B is a corporation established for the purpose of underwater construction business on January 26, 2010.

1. Any person who intends to use or occupy and use defendant A fishery harbor facilities shall obtain permission from the managing authority of fishery harbors;

Nevertheless, the defendant around May 31, 2017 and the same year.

6. On July 27, 200, in order to transport stone to the site of “F construction” located in the Gu of Ansan-si, a member of the Gu of Ansan-si, a member of the Gu of Ansan-si, which is being constructed in the company B in the company B, a red business trip (road 20 x vertical 20 m) was installed in the above E without permission, and occupied it without permission.

2. The Defendant Company B committed the act of violation as described in paragraph (1) with respect to the business affairs of the representative director A of paragraph (1).

2. The main sentence of Article 38(1) of the Fishing Villages and Fishery Harbors Act that intends to use or occupy fishery harbor facilities shall obtain permission from the managing authority of fishery harbors;

However, in the case of each subparagraph, the same proviso is to stipulate that a report should be filed with the managing authority of a fishery harbor.

According to the records, Defendant A around May 31, 2017 and the same year as indicated in the facts charged by Defendant A.

6. It is recognized that E’s red business trip (f.m. x 20m. x 20m in length) was installed in order to transport stone to a “F construction site” site located in the Gu of Ansan-si, a member of the Gu of Ansan-si, a member of the Gu of Ansan-si, which is being constructed at the Sinsi-si around 27.

However, in this case, Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act provides that "a vessel intends to anchor or anchor at an outer port (excluding a landing place), such as a breakwater, and thus has a duty to report to the fishery harbor management authority, and cannot be deemed as a matter requiring permission."

3. In conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a case that does not constitute a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant is under the proviso of Article 58 (2) of the Criminal Act.