The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., imprisonment with prison labor for six months, two years of suspended sentence, and 80 hours of community service order) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. While the Defendant had been punished several times for the same crime, he again committed the instant crime.

The purpose of this case is to protect and recover fishery resources, efficiently manage fishery resources, etc. is to do so, the crime of this case is not likely to be subject to criticism.

On the other hand, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and runs against the Defendant.

A criminal defendant has committed a relatively old offense except that he/she was punished by a fine in 2016, and the defendant has no record of being punished in excess of a fine.

It seems that the defendant did not capture female strings for distribution or sale purposes.

The defendant did not carry out fishery activities again and disposed of the fishing vessel.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, content, means and consequence of the crime, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court is deemed to be too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendant's appeal is with merit.

[Dao-written judgment] The summary of criminal facts and evidence admitted by the court below is to change the criminal facts of the judgment below to “the method of harming a person from being satisfying” as “the method of using a person satisfying” among the criminal facts of the judgment below. As such, even if the criminal facts of the judgment below are modified, it does not substantially disadvantage the defendant’s exercise of his right to defense. Thus, it is based on the facts