The judgment below

Part of the violation of the Fishing Vessels Act is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The defendant above.

1. The prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below (the violation of the Safety of Ships Act, and the violation of the Fishing Vessels Act) on the ground of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and the court prior to the return dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal.

In this regard, the prosecutor appealed on the ground of misunderstanding of legal principles as to the portion of violation of the Fishing Vessels Act in the judgment of the court before the above remand, and the portion of violation of the Vessel Safety Act, which was not appealed, was separated

Therefore, among the judgment below, only the violation of the Fishing Vessels Act is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. Progress of litigation on the violation of the Fishing Vessels Act;

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the installation of an acrylic board alone constitutes “a modification or repair affecting the strength, watertightness, or fire-prevention of the hull due to the main body of a vessel” or “a modification of the details stated in a fishing vessel inspection certificate” or “a modification that is likely to affect the depreciation of the vessel or the maintenance of human safety due to a marine accident, etc.,” and it is difficult to view that there is any influence on the vessel’s “diversity” and otherwise, it is difficult to view that the vessel’s “diversity” has any other impact on the vessel’s “diversity.”

B. The prosecutor of the judgment prior to remand filed an appeal against the lower judgment on the grounds of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

Article 27 (1) 1 of the Fishing Vessels Act does not delegate specific matters to be stated in the certificate of inspection of fishing vessels to subordinate statutes for the violation of the Fishing Vessels Act during the prosecutor's appeal.

Since there is no delegation of the Fishing Vessels Act, the gross tonnage shall not be deemed to fall under the contents stated in the certificate of inspection of fishing vessels under Article 27 (1) 1 of the Fishing Vessels Act.

The court ruled that punishing the Defendant against the violation of the Fishing Vessels Act goes against the principle of criminal justice, and sentenced the Prosecutor’s appeal to dismiss this part of the appeal.

(c)

The prosecutor of the judgment of remand violates the Fishing Vessels Act in the judgment of the court before the remand.