선박안전법위반등
Defendants shall be acquitted respectively.
1. The Defendant is the owner and captain of a fishing vessel C (9.77 tons) with private fishing vessels shipped.
(a) No owner of a vessel violating the Safety Act shall place the structure, engine, equipment, etc. of the relevant vessel after undergoing a shipbuilding inspection or ship inspection, or modify or remodel the relevant vessel, and shall maintain the vessel's hull, engine, equipment, etc. in a state of normal operation and operation;
However, the Defendant, after undergoing a temporary inspection by the Korea Ship Safety Technology Authority on February 12, 2016, expanded the structure above the hulls to use it as a resting space for fishing visitors, and extended the 17:00 on the same day in front of the E located in the Southern Navy D around the 17:54 cubic meters from 18.094 cubic meters to 35.648 cubic meters.
Accordingly, the defendant, after undergoing a ship inspection, expanded 9.77 tons of a ship to 14 tons of a ship and changed the placement of the ship.
(b) Any person who intends to remodel or repair a fishing vessel violating the Fishing Vessels Act, which has an impact on the strength, watertightness, or fire prevention of its hulls due to the length, width, depth, or main body of its hulls, or to alter the details stated in the fishing vessel inspection certificate, shall undergo a temporary inspection, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and shall not use the fishing vessel which has not undergone
However, the Defendant did not undergo a provisional inspection even if the volume of the part of the upper structure of the said vessel was 17.544 cubic meters and the tonnage was increased by approximately 4 tons in terms of the provision, such as “A,” and the Defendant did not undergo a provisional inspection on 2016 (the “2015” of the indictment appears to be a clerical error).
2. From December 12 to March 7, 2016, the said vessel was used for navigation or operation over six occasions.
2. In the instant case, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as an unlawful act falling under Articles 83 subparag. 3 and 15 subparag. 1 of the Ship Safety Act, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.
3...