beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. 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 uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Since the collection under Article 68 of the Fishery Resources Management Act is voluntarily conducted, whether it is necessary to collect the collection from an article that meets the requirements for such collection is left to the court’s discretion, and the court should make a final decision on whether to collect the collection at its discretion, taking into account various circumstances.
B. The lower court: (a) the circumstances that affirm the proportionality (the subject matter of confiscation is the product of a planned crime that is significant and significant for the purpose of the crime of this case; (b) the role and responsibility of the Defendant in the crime as the owner of the subject matter of confiscation; (c) the illegal act was committed for a long time and repeatedly; (d) the market price of the catch, such as misappropriation captured by the crime of this case, is a large amount of infringement of legal interests; and (e) the need to prevent recidivism); and (b) the circumstances that deny the proportionality (the amount claimed by the prosecutor is a simple sales that does not deduct all kinds of expenses; and (e)
In light of the fact that it is difficult to see that the capture is not prohibited by itself, and that it is difficult to readily conclude the relation with the person committing the crime when complying with the restriction regulations, the fact that the collection of the total amount of the collection is likely to bring about an excessive harsh result to the defendant when it is collected in light of the level of income of the defendant, and the fact that the confiscation and the collection should be emphasized rather than the punitive character, the confiscation and the collection should be emphasized rather than the punitive character) in this case, the collection against the defendant
(c)
Examining the following circumstances in light of the reasoning set forth by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and the lower court’s additional penalty is a penalty.