The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, on September 23, 2015, was first operated in the sea between the Gamdo and the U.S. P., and there was no fishing ground where the Defendant had a self-net fishing gear installed in the vicinity of the sea area in which the Defendant was operated. However, there was no fact that the Defendant, at the time, destroyed the victim’s self-net fishing gear by sticking it into the fishing gear to the view of the fishing gear, or by dumping it into the sea well in a blade.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, two years of community service, 200 hours) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who was a captain of C (13.65m in length, 7.93 tons in weight), a view fishing vessel of the view view in the Gunsan-si, Gunsan-si.

On September 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) loaded and departed from a non-opic port located in the Sinsi-si, Sinsan, Sinsan-si with a view to the view of the above vessel from around 22th of the same month to around 06:00 of the same month; and (b) during the course of operating the view with a view to about 2 to 3 hours at the sea between the galle road and the riverbed located in the Sinsan-si, Sinsan-si; and (c) during the course of operating the view with a net of about 2 to 3 hours, the victim E, the captain of the coastal fishing vessel, at D (6.6 meters in length, 1.10 tons in weight) with a view to putting the view into the above vessel; (d) with a view to throw the view to the view, the Defendant destroyed the fishery gear on the market value of the victim in a way that they throw the net of the above view with a knife.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, the lower court recognized the Defendant’s destruction of the unsatisfic net fishing gear at the market price owned by the victim from September 22, 2015 to 06:00 of the same month, and thus, deemed that the Defendant destroyed the unsatisfic net fishing gear at the market price owned by the victim.