[1] Where the port of registry of a fishing vessel which obtained a permit for inshore fishing is changed to the zone of operation of inshore fishing, whether inshore fishing is permitted in the zone of operation prohibition by deeming that the coordination of fisheries under Article 53(3) of the former Fisheries Act was conducted (negative)

[2] Circumstances that do not fall under a specific fishery business prohibited zone under Article 4 of the former Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources, and whether the abolition of the former Fishery Promotion Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, stipulating the distance between the inshore and coastal areas, affects the operating zone of inshore fishing (negative)

[1] In light of Article 52 (1) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 8377 of Apr. 11, 2007) and Article 17 (1) and attached Table 12 of the former Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19611 of Jul. 14, 2006) and Article 52 (1) of the former Ordinance on the Protection of Fishery Resources (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19611 of Jul. 14, 2006), since Jeonnam-do excluded from the operating zone of inshore-do coastal fishing, even if it was changed to Jeonnam-do in the zone where the port of loading of an inshore fishing permitted under the Decree on the Protection of Fishery Resources was permitted, it cannot be deemed that the coordination of fisheries under Article 53 (3) of the same Act was conducted and the offshore fishing is permitted

[2] Article 79(1)1 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 8377 of Apr. 11, 2007) and Article 4 of the former Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19611 of Jul. 14, 2006) are for the propagation and protection of marine animals and plants, and Article 52(1)3 of the same Act and Article 17(1) of the former Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources are for the purpose of fishery control, hygiene control, distribution order and other coordination of fisheries, and their legislative intent and scope vary. Thus, Article 17(1) of the same Decree are not excluded from the restriction under Article 4 of the same Decree solely on the ground that it does not fall under a specific fishery zone under Article 4 of the same Decree. Even if the former Enforcement Decree of the Fisheries Act and the former Enforcement Decree thereof have been abolished, it still does not affect the inshore fishery zone by regulating coastal fishery as well as inshore fishery.

[1] Articles 52(1) and 53(3) (see current Article 53(1)), Article 17(1) (see current Article 20(1)) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 8377 of Apr. 11, 2007), Article 41 (see current Article 43), Article 52(1)3 (see current Article 53(1) (see current Article 57(3)), Article 79(1)1 (see current Article 77(1)1), Article 17(1) (see current Article 20(1) of the former Ordinance on the Protection of Fishery Resources (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19611 of Jul. 14, 2006) / [2] Article 41 of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 8377 of Apr. 11, 2007), Article 52(1)3 (see current Article 53(1)3), Article 79(1)1(1)1)1)1)1 (see current Article 6(14(1)1) of the former Ordinance.

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1032 Decided September 24, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2625), Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2075 Decided January 10, 2003 / [1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do2917 Decided February 25, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2004Do872 Decided April 9, 2004

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Law Firm Mai Law Office, Attorneys regular training and 1 other

Gwangju District Court Decision 2007No766 Decided October 10, 2007

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to Article 52(1) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Act No. 8377 of Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter referred to as the " Fisheries Act"), the following matters may be prescribed by Presidential Decree for the control of fisheries, hygiene control, distribution order and other coordination of fisheries, and the limitation or prohibition on the operation area of fisheries, the time of capture and gathering of fisheries, the fixed number of permits for inshore fisheries under subparagraph 5, the restriction on the volume of vessels, and the restriction or prohibition on fishery permits. Article 17(1) of the former Ordinance on the Protection of Marine Resources (amended by Presidential Decree No. 19611 of Jul. 14, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources") and its [Attachment 12] are excluded from the inshore net fishing zone designated by the former Ordinance on the Protection of Marine Resources under Article 52(1) of the former Fisheries Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 20000, Jul. 14, 2006).

In addition, the purpose of Article 79(1)1 of the Fisheries Act and Article 4 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources is to propagate and protect marine animals and plants, and Article 52(1)3 of the Fisheries Act as well as Article 17(1) of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources, except for the offshore-net fishing operation zones in the offshore-net fishing operation zones, etc. above, are for the regulation of fisheries, hygiene control, distribution order and other coordination, and its legislative intent and scope are different. Thus, it is not excluded from the restriction under Article 17(1) of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources solely on the ground that it does not fall under the prohibition zone under Article 4 of the Decree on the Protection of Marine Resources, and even if the Enforcement Decree thereof was repealed, the Fisheries Act still regulates the distance between inshore and coastal fishing under Article 41 of the same Decree, so such circumstance does not affect the conclusion above (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2879, Aug. 13, 2002).

2. Examining the above legal principles and records, the court below's decision of the court of first instance which found the defendants guilty of violating the Fisheries Act is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the limitation and prohibition of inshore net fishing as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)