beta
Text
Defendant
H’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the records of this case’s judgment on Defendant H’s appeal, even if Defendant H filed an appeal against the lower judgment on July 15, 2019 and received the notification of the receipt of the trial record on August 19, 2019, Defendant H did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within the lawful period for submission of the appellate brief, and the petition of appeal does not contain any indication of the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal and does not find any grounds for ex officio investigation even after examining the lower judgment.
Therefore, in accordance with Article 361-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, a decision to dismiss Defendant H’s appeal should be made. However, as long as a public prosecutor rendered a judgment on appeal against the Defendants, the dismissal of appeal should not be separately decided, and a judgment should be rendered.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's appeal
A. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that each sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendants (10 months of imprisonment, 2 years of probation, 160 hours of community service order, Defendant H: Imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months of probation, 2 years of probation, and 160 hours of community service order) is too uneasible and unreasonable.
B. As to the instant crime, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) it is deemed that unlawful fishing activities, like the instant crime, interfere with the sustainable development of fisheries by ultimately raising fishery resources; and (b) Defendant H committed the instant crime during the suspended execution period due to fraud; (c) on the other hand, Defendant G did not have any criminal record exceeding the fine due to the same kind of crime; (d) Defendant H did not have the same record in the case of Defendant H; and (e) the circumstances alleged by the prosecutor as the grounds for appeal were already considered at the lower court; (b) there was no new change of circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court at the trial; and (c) there was no other change of circumstances that could change the sentence of the lower court at the trial; and (d) it is not recognized that each sentence imposed by the lower court to the Defendants is too unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion is with merit.