(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.09.22 2016노1906 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.09.22 2016노1906

수산업법위반

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The accused shall announce the summary of the judgment of innocence.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal doctrine 1) Article 27(4) of the Fisheries Act (hereinafter “the Act”) provides that a fishery right holder may manage a fishing ground even if a fishing vessel without permission under Article 41 of the Act is within the fishing ground of the licensed fishery business, and managing a fishing vessel designated as a management vessel of a large number of fishing fishing grounds by using a fishing vessel with a license number C (hereinafter “J”) and without designation or approval for use (hereinafter “the instant aquaculture”), is not contrary to the legal interests and legislative intent of Article 27(4) of the Act. Thus, there is no constituent requirement.

2) The Defendant: (a) destroyed G, the management line of the instant aquaculture, and sought the J’s inquiry from the Cheong Chang-gun Office to operate the instant aquaculture upon obtaining the approval of the management line of the instant aquaculture.

Article 27 (3) of the Act provides that a holder of fishery right who fails to have a control vessel on the fishing ground of licensed fishery may use a fishing vessel designated as a management vessel of another fishing ground by obtaining approval from the head of the Si/Gun/Gu.

However, a public official in charge provides that "one person's own fishing ground shall be one person per unit (hereinafter "Ordinance of this case")" under the attached Table of the Ordinance on the Criteria for the Quantity and Use of Fishing Ground Management Line in the High Chang-gun. In this case, the Ordinance of this case requires a fishery right holder to have a management line to the extent of the number of fishing grounds for the licensed fishery business, which is unlawful in violation of Article 27 (3) of the Act, and in this situation, there is no possibility that the defendant will manage the fishing ground using a management line designated or approved for use.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Summary of the facts charged

참조조문

-수산업법 제27조 제4항

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.11.22 2018노305

-대법원 2018.02.28 2017도16725

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.04.30 2018고정57

-대구고등법원 2020.5.22.선고 2019누4692 판결

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.01.15 2017고정504