Defendant 1 and two others

Cho Sung-sung (Court of Second Instance) and Court of Second Instance (Court of Second Instance)

Attorney Hahn-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months, and by a fine of ten thousand won for a stock company of ten thousand won.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above punishment against Defendant 1 and 2 shall be suspended.

Attached 1’s sea depths listed in the list of crimes in attached Table 1(1ma), 2’s ices (1math tokens), 3’s burnings (the female tokens), 3’s sea-nets (the female tokens), 6’s D-38 (the female tokens) shall be confiscated from the Defendants, respectively.

Defendant 3’s provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine shall be ordered to Defendant 3 Company.

To order the defendant 1 and 2 to provide community service for 120 hours each.

1. Defendant 1, 2

Defendant 1 is the representative director of Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. for the purpose of marine satisfaction tourist business, etc., and Defendant 2 is the director in charge of the duties of entering, raising, and training the cryp, etc. in Defendant 3 Co., Ltd.

(a) No person shall possess, transport, dispose of, process or sell marine animals and plants captured, gathered or cultivated in violation of an order under the Fisheries Act or the Fisheries Act and products thereof;

Nevertheless, at around 09:10 on May 1, 2009, the Defendants conspired to purchase KRW 15,00,000 from Nonindicted Party 1, who captured 2 15,000,000 in a political network, which is highly prohibited from capture by the notification of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries under the Fisheries Act (No. 2008-46) and transferred 2 mags to land on the truck and transported it to land on the truck, and thereafter, transported it to the Defendant 3 stock company located in Seopopo-si (hereinafter address omitted), such as transporting it to the grass in the case of Seopo-si (hereinafter address omitted), such as the number 1 to 5 as described in the attached list of crimes in the attached Table 1 to 5, and possessed and transported a large large amount of 7 mags captured from fishermen in violation of the Fisheries Act.

(b) No person shall possess, distribute, process, store or sell fishery resources or products thereof captured and gathered in violation of an order under the Fishery Resources Management Act or the Fisheries Act.

Nevertheless, at around 11:35 on May 13, 2010, the Defendants conspired to purchase KRW 10,000,00 from Non-Indicted 2 who captured Non-Indicted 1 ma in a political network, the capture of which is prohibited by the Notice of the Ministry for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (No. 2009-31) under the Fisheries Act, in the pre-U.S. political net fishing ground in the Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si (No. 2009-31) and moved to land on the truck, and then transported the truck to land on the truck and keep it in custody, such as transporting it to a pool in the Defendant 3 Co., Ltd. in the Seopo-si (hereinafter address omitted), as described in No. 6-9 of the List of Crimes No. 3, the Defendants purchased and kept a large amount of 4 mags captured from fishermen in violation of the Fisheries Act.

2. Defendant 3 Company

Defendant 1, the representative director of the Defendant, in the same date and time as in paragraph (1), and in the same place as in the attached list of crimes, purchased 11 maws from fishermen on the duties of the Defendant, and possessed and kept them.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each protocol on the suspect examination of a police officer against Nonindicted 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 2, 7, and 8

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 12

1. All the details of transactions, copies of passbooks, documents related to the sales of the future, and all the documents related to the purchase of the future;

1. Responses to the current status of the breeding of the future and to the request for cooperation in investigation affairs;

1. The police seizure report and the list of seizure;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Defendant 1 and 2: Articles 95 subparag. 8 and 73 of the former Fisheries Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9626, Apr. 22, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Articles 95 subparag. 8 and 73 of the same Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10272, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Articles 64 subparag. 1 and 17 of the former Fishery Resources Management Act (amended by Act No. 10272, Oct. 16, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply)

Defendant 3: Each of the former Fishery Resources Management Act (Amended by Act No. 10272, Apr. 15, 2010; Act No. 10272, Oct. 16, 2010); Articles 69, 64 subparag. 1, and 17 note 1)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1 and 2: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Defendant 1 and 2: Article 97(1) of the former Fisheries Act; Article 68(1) of the former Fishery Resources Management Act

Defendant 3: Article 68(1) of the former Fishery Resources Management Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 3: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Social service order;

Defendant 1 and 2: each Criminal Code Article 62-2

The Defendants and the defense counsel asserted that there was a lack of awareness of illegality regarding the act of purchasing and holding the congested down in the political net fishing ground to the chief of the competent maritime police station without reporting.

Article 16 of the Criminal Act provides that "the act of misunderstanding that one's act does not constitute a crime under Acts and subordinate statutes shall not be punishable only when there is a justifiable ground for misunderstanding." It does not mean a simple legal site, but it is the purport that it shall not be punishable if there is a justifiable ground in misunderstanding that one's act constitutes a crime, although it is generally a crime, it is aware that it does not constitute a crime as permitted by Acts and subordinate statutes in his own special circumstances, and that it does not constitute a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5511, Nov.

According to the evidence of the court below, even if the above defendants 1 and 2 were purchased from fishermen, and most of the fishermen who transferred the above defendants were aware that capture of the above defendants was illegal, and the defendants also endeavored to obtain approval from the Minister for Food, Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries for the capture of the tea, etc., even though they were not aware that the above defendants' above acts were in violation of the law, it is merely merely a legal site, and it does not constitute a case where they were aware that the above acts were not an act permitted by the law in their special cases.

Along with the fact that the defendants illegally purchased the stones and currently possessed or possessed by the defendants, the number of vehicles for the purpose of profit-making by training the kackers possessed through the above process and operating the business for profit-making purposes, the profits acquired therefrom seems to be significant, and the defendants stated that the defendants, under the circumstances unfavorable to the defendants, Defendant 1 and 2, against the past mistake in this court, they would be able to comply with due process, and that the defendants 2 did not have any criminal history exceeding fines, shall be considered as a favorable consideration in favor of the defendants.

On the other hand, the former Fisheries Act and the former Fishery Resources Management Act provide for voluntary confiscation as a punishment to deprive the ownership, etc. of the goods related to the criminal acts charged for confiscation and to vest in the National Treasury. Voluntary confiscation is subject to the court's discretion. In this case, it is subject to the limitation on the principle of proportionality applicable to the general punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8174, Apr. 24, 2008) and the scope of confiscation. In the relevant case, the degree of illegality, degree of disadvantage that the confiscation would result in the owner, relation between the illegal and the confiscated goods, and other all other circumstances, the confiscation should be reasonably determined through individual and specific balancing.

In the case of this case, it seems that the defendants who are currently living in the past are themselves the goods in violation of the law, and that the above stones would not have a considerable amount of profits earned by the defendants by using them for tourism business. If not confiscated, the defendants would continue to use the above stones and make profits available for tourism business, such as public performance, and it would cause the defendants to maintain the illegal state. This means to secure futures necessary for the tourism business operated by the defendants, not any other source sealed, and the defendants raise questions about the possibility of adaptation in the event they release naturally, but the defendants raise questions about the possibility of adaptation in the event of natural release. However, this decision is delivered with the decision to confiscate them from the defendants, by taking account of the following: (a) the defendants are difficult in the course of the execution of the punishment; and (b) there is no significant influence on the sentence of confiscation.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Jong-soo

(1) Public prosecutors were indicted under Articles 98(1), 95 subparag. 8, and 73 of the Fisheries Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10272, Apr. 15, 2010; Act No. 9626, Apr. 22, 2009; Act No. 9623, Apr. 23, 2010) and Articles 69, 64 subparag. 1, and 17 of the former Fishery Management Act (amended by Act No. 10272, Oct. 16, 2010; Act No. 964, Apr. 15, 2010; Act No. 9626, Apr. 2, 2009; Act No. 1020, Apr. 23, 2010). However, in the former Fishery Management Act, if a corporation which is a new corporation did not neglect to exercise due care and supervision over the relevant business to prevent a violation, the provisions should be applied.