All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Where a member of a fishing village fraternity who entered into a contract for the exercise of fishing right with a fishing village fraternity has made another member of the fishing village fraternity profit in excess of 50%, it shall not be in violation of Article 32(1) of the Fisheries Act;

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, that is, Article 32 (1) of the Fisheries Act provides that "no holder of fishery right shall have another person actually control over the operation of the fishery." The interpretation of "other person" under Article 32 (1) of the Fisheries Act as "other person except the members of a fishing village fraternity" is without legal basis. If such interpretation is allowed, a person who does not have the qualification and priority under the fishing ground management rules can actually exercise the right of communal fishing, so the State's regulation on the exercise of communal fishing right can be avoided. In addition, considering Article 37 and Article 38 of the Fisheries Act, Article 43 (1) of the Rules on the Management, etc. of Fishing Village License, Article 43 (1) of the Fisheries Act provides that a member of a fishing village fraternity may exercise the actual fishery right only when a contract with a fishing village fraternity is concluded with the fishing village fraternity, which is a exercise of the fishery right, and it is justified in the court below's determination that the act of Defendant A fishery actually controlled the above violation of the fishery business.

Therefore, as pointed out in the judgment of the court below, there is no error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the defendants' above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is without merit, and Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act is not reasonable.