Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

At around 07:00 on December 21, 2012, the Defendant, as the captain of the Cho Lake (4.63 tons, dies, and Si/Gu/Si/Gu/Si/Gu/Si/Gun) on the port, was on board the said vessel with one seafarer and depart from the port operation.

C From 07:10 on the same day to 07:50 on the same day, at the sea (36-03.31N, 129-25.54E) of the port of the port of the port of the port of the port of the port of the port, the port of the port of the port of the port between 07:10 and 07:50 on the same day, he was allowed to capture approximately 20 km of the steering gear by capturing the vessel’s seat, a type of net fishing gear installed on the port of the port of the port of the port of the port (36-03.31N, 129-25.54E).

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. A statement of detection;

1. A copy of a report on the arrest of vessels violating the Fisheries Act, inquiry about fishermen's permission, current status of permits to engage in coastal net fisheries, a location map of fishing sea referred to in subparagraph (c), and a copy of a public announcement of notification of permits

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing evidence photographs;

1. Article 97 (1) 2 of the Fisheries Act and Article 41 (3) 1 of the same Act concerning the selection of criminal facts and punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted as to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the ship was out of the permitted area by fasting the wind, and that there was no fact of operating the ship at all times

However, according to the above date and time of the crime, it is formed in the opposite direction to the defendant's assertion. Thus, regardless of the defendant's assertion, it could not be taken from the original location to the location at the time of detection. In the event that the defendant is discovered at the time of being investigated by the police, it is argued that there was no soil material due to non-operation, and that there was soil material at the time of detection.