Cases holding that a person who is engaged in fisheries under Articles 94 (1) 1 and 41 (2) 2 of the Fisheries Act does not constitute a person who is engaged in fisheries

Unless there exist special circumstances, such as the fact that the Nonindicted Party, who is a partner, has been in exclusive charge of the business of obtaining permission, constructing and operating farms, etc., and the Defendant submitted a letter of waiver of ownership to the luminous fish without permission, and the authority did not seize the luminous fish at the same place with permission to engage in fish farming and making efforts to obtain permission by using the same facility at the same place. However, if the Nonindicted Party had been in a crisis where the luminous fish cultivated in the same place is at the time and the Defendant was supplied temporarily until the time when the permission was obtained, barring special circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant already waived ownership of the luminous fish, the Defendant does not constitute a person who runs a fishery business provided for in Articles 94(1)1 and 41(2)2 of the Fisheries Act.

Articles 94(1)1 and 41(2)2 of the Fisheries Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daegu District Court Decision 93No2010 delivered on February 25, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The facts charged by the prosecutor are as follows: (a) a person who intends to carry on the fishery of cultivating marine animals and plants on land or other facilities on land with the permission of the Mayor/Do governor on the facilities such as fishing gear, but (b) the defendant, without such permission, managed 14 water tanks installed as Nonindicted 1 and a partnership business at the place where the fishery is omitted, and operated the fishery by supplying 20,000 ginant fish and supplying 20,000 gins with drinking and mountain gins, at the place where the fishery is omitted, at the request of the Do governor on September 2, 1991 to September 14, 192.

2. According to the facts established by the court below and the record, the defendant invested funds in the 1991 by Nonindicted 1's invitation, and made an agreement to operate the land fish farming business in exclusive charge of the purchase of land, construction of farming farms, acquisition of fishery permits and operation of farming farms. Nonindicted 1 acquired land from the defendant's funds, and opened a water tank 40,000 mar from around May 1991 without permission to operate a fish farming business, which was discovered on September 26, 1991, and received a non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 1's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 9's fishery 9's non-2's non-indicted.

2. If the facts are as above, while the Defendant made efforts to obtain a permit with the intent to run the fish farming business using the same facility at the same place with the permission for the fish farming business on land, it is merely that Nonindicted 1 had been left left at the same place due to his detention, and the Defendant temporarily supplied drinking and oxygen until he obtained the permission, and the Defendant already waived ownership with respect to the above light fish. Thus, barring special circumstances such as the Defendant has already cultivated the above light fish for its own business purpose, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant constitutes a person who runs the fish farming business under Articles 94(1)1 and 41(2)2 of the Fisheries Act, unless there are special circumstances such as the Defendant has otherwise cultivated the above light fish for its own business purpose.

3. Therefore, although the so-called "defendants" does not constitute the elements of a violation of the Fisheries Act, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of the violation of the Fisheries Act, but it is just in the conclusion that the defendant is not guilty, and the appeal pointing out the misapprehension of legal principles as to the judgment below is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)