All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (7 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence, which did not impose an additional collection on the value of the catch captured by the Defendant in violation of the Fishery Resources Management Act, is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The crime of this case as to the Defendant’s assertion is deemed to have captured an erroneous fishing, etc. in violation of the restriction on the method of using fishing gear, etc. over 262 times during two years and four months, and the nature of the crime is poor.

The size and value of the catch illegally captured by the defendant is very large.

In full view of the above circumstances and other conditions of sentencing, including the Defendant’s age, sexual conduct, environment, health, degree of participation in the commission of the crime, background and consequence of the commission of the crime, means and result, scale of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, even if considering the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime, and that the Defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine, the sentence imposed by the lower court appears to be reasonable, and the lower court’s judgment exceeded the reasonable bounds of discretion.

There are no circumstances such as evaluation or maintenance of it is deemed unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the Prosecutor’s argument is 1) Since additional collection under Article 68 of the Fishery Resources Management Act is discretionary, the issue of whether to impose additional collection on an article that meets the requirements for such additional collection is entrusted to the court’s discretion, and the court should make a final decision on whether to impose additional collection at its discretion, taking into account various circumstances into account.

2) The lower court: (a) the circumstances that affirm the proportionality (subject to confiscation is of great importance to the crime of this case as the motive for interest; (b) the Defendant is the product of planned crimes; (c) the role and responsibility of the Defendant as the owner of the subject matter of confiscation; and (d) the illegal act is repeated for a long time.