In her decision Justice Patricia Courtney found the fine was "disproportionate to the offending and [was] manifestly excessive".
She said it was an "unusual combination of factors" where Nelson was fined, as well as being a shareholder in the company which was fined.
"...In the circumstance of this case, it would have been right to take the effect of the fine on the company into account when assessing whether the overall penalty was proportionate to the offending and to Mr Nelson personally."
She said it was not possible to consider Mr Nelson's personal financial circumstances without recognising the effect of the fine paid by the company.
She said a fine of $35,000 would take "a very long time to pay" and at $100 a week could take 15 years.
She considered a fine that could be repaid over a period of five years would reflect fairly the seriousness and believed $15,000 was a more appropriate figure.
During the appeal lawyer Hamish Evans argued that Nelson's $35,000 fine, in particular, be reduced to something in the region of $10,000.
Mr Evans said it was unusual for a company, as well as an employee, to be fined in such cases.
Rotorua Crown solicitor Amanda Gordon said it was important that the fine was large enough to do what it was designed to do.
