Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for life.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years.

Defendant 3 shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years.

Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of five years.

Defendant 6 and 12 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Defendant 7 and Defendant 8 shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Defendant 9 shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years.

Defendant 10, Defendant 11, 13, 14, and 15 shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three years.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 4 and Defendant 5, the charge of burying occupational ships and violation of the Marine Environment Management Act shall be acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be publicly notified.

The Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant 16 Co., Ltd. (S. Co., Ltd.) is dismissed.

(a) A prosecutor;

1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles

A) As to murder and attempted murder (defendants 1, 2, 3, and 9 note 1)

Before the above Defendants were to have attempted to get off the passengers, etc., the above Defendants were aware of the fact that the passengers, etc. would have been dead unless they were to take measures to get off the ship. In other words, the Defendants were able to have been able to have the passengers, etc. died. In particular, the lower court acknowledged the Defendants’ intention of murder with Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, and there is no reason to separately determine the intention of murder with respect to other passengers, etc., who did not have observed directly by Defendant 9.

B) Violation of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act (Defendant 16 Co., Ltd. and Defendant 4 Co., Ltd.)

In the main text of Article 18(1)2 of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the vicinity of the distress site, “ship, etc. in distress site” in the main text of Article 18(1)2 of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the vicinity of the distress site shall be determined on the basis of “the person in distress,” rather than the ship in distress. In such interpretation, “ship in the vicinity of the distress site” may include “ship in distress” such as “○○” and “ship in distress.” As such, the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act shall apply to the above Defendants.

C) Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Defendant 1, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5)

Considering the type of Article 5-12(3) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (hereinafter “Special Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act”), legislative progress, etc., the subject of Article 5-12 cannot be deemed to be limited to the captain and crew of “ship causing an accident” who is the subject of the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act. This includes both the captain and crew who committed an offense as prescribed in Article 268 of the Criminal Act by causing a maritime accident due to the transportation of the ship. Therefore, Article 5-12 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act shall apply to the above Defendants.

D) The point of burial of occupational ships (Defendant 1)

The lower court did not recognize Defendant 1’s negligence related to the burial of a ship by occupational negligence, which did not directly violate the duty to direct at the accident site. However, the branch of the sinking accident of 00 (hereinafter “instant accident”) is a sea area where there is a danger, such as overflow, in the event of electricity with rapid tidal currents, and constitutes “when there is a risk to a ship,” where navigation of 00, where restitution is weak at the point of the instant accident, it constitutes “when there is a risk to a ship,” where the captain should direct the ship directly. Therefore, it is recognized that Defendant 1, who did not direct the steering of 00 at the point of the instant accident at the point of the instant accident, was negligent in violating the duty to direct.

E) The death or bodily injury resulting from abandonment (the defendant 16 corporation (the defendant 16 corporation et al., the defendant 4 corporation)

(1) The court below should include the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in accordance with Article 21(1) of the Marine Transportation Act and Article 21(1)4 of the Marine Transportation Act, except for the legal grounds for the above Defendants’ duty of protection.

(2) The lower court excluded part of the part of the victim’s injury recognized as the crime of injury by abandonment from criminal facts on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that part of the part of the victim’s injury was an injury caused by abandonment of the said Defendants, but some of the above exclusion of injury also occurred in the process of escape from ○○

(3) The lower court acknowledged the causal relationship between the abandonment of Nonindicted 3 and the result of the death of the said Defendants in the case of Nonindicted 3, a missing person falling down on the sea around the start of ○○○ Lake, but, as long as it cannot be readily concluded that Nonindicted 3 died immediately after the death of the said Defendants, the said Defendants were obligated to rescue Nonindicted 3, which fell down on the sea, and Nonindicted 3 died because the said Defendants failed to take rescue measures, and thus, the causal relationship between the abandonment of the said Defendants and the death of Nonindicted 3

(4) On the ground that around 09:00 on the day of the instant case, it is difficult to recognize that there was a response to the preparation of the Jeju Marine Transport Control Center (hereinafter “VTS”) to get off the ship, the lower court excluded from the criminal facts that the said Defendants conspired from the Jeju VTS to get off the ship, but it is recognized that Nonindicted 10, at the time, the Jeju VTS demanded the preparation of the passengers, etc. to get off the ship while communicating with ○○.

2) As to the whole of the defendants in unreasonable sentencing (as to the defendant)

From a general preventive perspective that the Defendants, as the captain, crew members, and crew members of a ship, have discharged their obligations and responsibilities given to them when an emergency situation, such as the sinking of the ship, and provided the cause of the instant accident to the victims, and provided them with the cause of the instant accident to the extent that the victims do not occur again, the Defendants’ imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 36 years, 20 years, 15 years, 10 years, 6 years, 7 years, 7 years, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 years, 9 years, 30 years, and 16 months, 10 million won, 40, and 5 years, 6 years, 7 years, 7 years, 8, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 years, 30 years, 30 years, and 16 months, 40 million won.

B. The remaining Defendants except for Defendant 16 Co., Ltd. (S. 4 Co., Ltd.)

1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles

A) homicide against the victim Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 (Defendant 9)

Defendant 9 thought at the time that Non-Indicted 1 and Non-Indicted 2 had already died in a yellow state due to severe fear and extreme physical pain, and that the escape together with the engine crew did not have the intent to murder with the above victims.

B) The burial of occupational ships (Defendant 2, Defendant 4, Defendant 5)

(1) Defendant 2

The business of loading and gambling of the cargo set forth in 00 was carried out by Defendant 16 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 16 Co., Ltd.”) and Nonindicted Co. 14 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co. 14”) (hereinafter “Defendant 16 Co., Ltd.”) to take full charge of the logistics team of Defendant 16 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 16 Co., Ltd.”) and the loading and unloading company, and Defendant 2 did not carry out the above business, so there is no duty of care for cargo set forth in 00 to the above Defendant

(2) Defendant 4

(A) Defendant 4 confirmed that the sea route specified in the instant accident area had been divided into five degrees, and instructed a change to Defendant 5, and was sailing with radars and various equipment, etc. with a caution. At the point of the instant accident, immediately after Defendant 5’s order to change the course of the instant accident, the Gap’s hull began to make it to the left side rapidly, and the cause of the occurrence of this phenomenon was not clearly revealed. The vessel’s normal operation of the vessel is 15 degrees or more. Even if Defendant 5 was able to use the vessel as a matter of course, if the vessel lost its restoration power, the vessel’s restoration power was lost by making it defective in 00, and Defendant 4, a watchkeeping navigation officer, did not have to continue to report how much the vessel’s operation 5 degree, and thus, Defendant 4’s occupational negligence cannot be acknowledged.

(B) The cause of the instant accident is, due to unreasonable remodeling of the vessel, serious decline in the weight, movement and restitution of the vessel centering around the vessel due to unreasonable remodeling, shortage of overfluence and horizontal water, and misfluence. Such circumstance was wholly caused by Defendant 16, a captain of the vessel ○○○, Defendant 16 (Nonindicted Co., Ltd.). Therefore, even if Defendant 4 et al. was found to have been negligent, there is no proximate causal relation between Defendant 4 et al.’s negligence and the burial of the vessel, insofar as the aforementioned circumstances are the main cause of the sinking of the vessel.

(3) Defendant 5

(A) While Defendant 5 was proceeding from the sea area of the instant accident to 135 degrees, Defendant 4’s 140 degree direction saw Defendant 4’s 140 degree direction toward the instant accident to see that the hull direction exceeds 143 degrees, and there is only a string towards the port direction in order to see the vessel direction, and there is no fact that Defendant 5 left the string direction as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the lower court.

(B) Even if Defendant 5 used a large angle with a level equal to that of maintaining the 15 degrees or more for 40 seconds, if the ○ho Lake was not buried, and thus there was no causation between Defendant 5’s negligence and ship burial.

C) Abandonment death or bodily injury (defendants 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15)

(1) Defendant 4

(A) At the time, Defendant 4 did not receive any instruction from Defendant 1, a captain, and did not take relief measures against passengers due to the increased cross slope, resulting in Defendant 4’s failure to move, and there was no intention to abandon his duties to the victims.

(B) Defendant 4’s short seafarer experience, absence of education about emergency situation, pleasure, fear, etc., and there was no possibility of expectation about the above Defendant’s rescue activity.

(2) Defendant 5

(A) The imposition of a contractual duty to protect passengers on Defendant 5, who are merely a sponser, as an assistant in accordance with a contract of carriage between Defendant 16 and passengers, is against the principle of no punishment without law, since the scope of the duty to protect passengers is not clear.

(B) Defendant 5 cannot take rescue measures without the instruction of Defendant 1, etc., the captain, as the steering gear under the direction and supervision of the captain or mate.

(3) Defendants 6 and 7

(A) On April 14, 2014, Defendant 6 was on board the Defendant Company 16 (Nonindicted Company 4, 2014) with an interview, on the part of Defendant 16 (Nonindicted Company 4, Defendant 6), and on the part of Defendant 16, did not enter into a regular labor contract with Defendant 16 (Nonindicted Company 4). Thus, Defendant 6’s performance assistant (Nonindicted Company 4, 201) did not bear a contractual duty to protect passengers.

(B) Even if Defendant 6 and Defendant 7 are in the position of taking the duty to protect under a contract, the said Defendants cannot take relief measures without the direction of Defendant 1, etc. as a mate or steering boat under the command and supervision of the captain, and the content of the duty to protect the said Defendants’ contractual protection should be limited as stipulated in the operation management rules of 00. At the time, Defendant 1 did not give any instruction to the said Defendants, and thus, the said Defendants do not assume the duty to protect the passengers under a contract. Furthermore, Defendant 7 attempted to approach the life raft of the on-site deck, thereby fulfilling the contractual duty to protect the said Defendants.

(C) On April 16, 2014, the lower court determined that Defendant 6 and Defendant 7’s failure to take relief measures despite hearing the horses that Defendant 6 and Defendant 7 arrive after 10 minutes from Jindo VTS, thereby resulting in the abandonment. However, the time at which the above Defendants’ discontinuance of rescue cannot be deemed as the time at which the abandonment was discontinued.

(D) Defendants 6 and 7 thought that the passengers were to have received the order to abandon the ship through the employees of the crew, and the Korea Coast Guard (hereinafter referred to as “defluence”) thought that the passengers would have been able to rescue the ship, and that the passengers would have actually arrived at the sea. At around 09:26, around 09:26, Defendant 6 and 7 could have attempted to leave the ship outside the steering house to the extent of failure. Accordingly, there was no intention to abandon the ship to the said Defendants.

(E) Even if Defendant 6 and Defendant 7 led passengers on deck at around 09:26, it is practically impossible for more than 400 passengers to safely rescue out of the ship, and there is a victim who died away from the sea, so there is no causal relation between the abandonment of the above Defendants and the death of the victims.

(F) Defendant 6 and Defendant 7’s act of destroying the ship from 00 to 00 was an act to avoid danger to the life, and thus, there is considerable reason to believe that the act constitutes an emergency evacuation under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, is not unlawful, or that it constitutes an excessive escape under Article 22(3) of the Criminal Act or an excessive defense under Article 21(3) of the Criminal Act, and thus, is not liable.

(4) Defendant 8

(A) On April 16, 2014, when an appropriate evacuation order was issued on or around 09:26, the victims could voluntarily overcome risks to their lives and bodies without any other person’s help, and thus, it does not constitute a person in need of assistance as stipulated in Article 271 of the Criminal Act, except for those who actually suffered from the old and the weak or the disease requiring assistance.

(B) As an assistant to perform a contract of carriage between Defendant 16 and passengers, Defendant 8 under the direction of the captain and mate, imposing a contractual duty on passengers is contrary to the principle of no punishment without law, which is the basis for the duty to protect the passengers. The scope of the contractual duty to protect the passengers is unclear.

(C) Defendant 8, as a steering gear under the direction and supervision of the captain or the mate, failed to obtain any instruction on the rescue of passengers from Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and attempted to carry on the rescue log raft in a yellow state. Defendant 8 had no intention to abandon his duty to provide assistance to the person who was in need of assistance to the captain at the time of the rescue of the passengers, since he attempted to get out the rescue of the rescue log raft in a yellow state. In addition, Defendant 8 did not have the possibility of expectation on the rescue of passengers.

(D) At around 09:26, when Defendant 8 et al. told 10 minutes of the Jindo VTS, the lower court determined that Defendant 8 et al.’s abandonment did not comply with the above relief measures and did not take any measures to guide the passengers via the mobile entrance entrance, but determined that the time of abandonment did not occur. However, the lower court determined the time of abandonment individually depending on the master’s and crew’s role. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the time of abandonment.

(5) Defendants 11, 13, and 14

(A) Although Defendant 11, Defendant 13, and Defendant 14 knew that the victims had been in the state of need for assistance, there was no perception that the victims were abandoned, or there was no perception that the said Defendants could move to the guest room where the victims were victims, there was no intention to abandon them.

(B) In light of the speed and direction of the algae at the scene of the accident, the sinking status of ○○, etc., if Defendant 11, 13, and 14 were to take relief measures, it is difficult to readily conclude that the victims were rescued or did not have any injury. Therefore, there is no causal link between the Defendants’ abandonment act and the victims’ death or injury.

(C) Since Defendant 11, 13, and 14’s act of destroying the ship from 00 to 00 was an act to avoid the danger to the life, there is considerable reason to view that the act constitutes an emergency evacuation under Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act, or that there is no possibility of expectation of lawful act as it constitutes excessive escape under Article 22(3) of the Criminal Act or excessive defense under Article 21(3) of the Criminal Act.

(6) Defendant 12

(A) It is difficult to readily conclude that the result of the death or injury of the victims was caused by Defendant 12’s abandonment, and there is no causal link between the Defendant’s abandonment and the victim’s death or injury.

(B) Defendant 12 was on board the ship for the first time on the day immediately before the accident occurred, and the area where the crew and passengers are separated, and there was a difference in the number of students going on school travel. At the time of waiting in front of the crew room in the third floor, the cause of the accident or the situation of the passengers could not be known, and the Defendant did not receive any instruction from the captain or the head of the agency on relief measures. Thus, the Defendant did not have the intent to abandon.

(7) Defendant 15

Defendant 15 was injured on the face, shoulder, knee, knee, etc. at the time when the hull of ○○○ was cut down rapidly, and the long-standing alcohol was teared. Defendant 15 was unable to find a mind due to extreme pain. Defendant 15 was unable to know the cause of the accident or the situation of passengers at the time of waiting in front of the engine crew room, and was not subject to any instruction from the captain or the head of the engine on relief measures. As such, the Defendant did not have any intent to abandon the Defendant.

D) Violation of the Marine Environment Management Act (Defendant 4, Defendant 5)

(1) Defendant 4

Defendant 4 did not commit any negligence in the operation of ○○○○, or any negligence in relation to the over-fluoring and poor-fluoring of cargo, and even if the ship was negligent, there is no causation between the oil leakage and

(2) Defendant 5

There is no negligence on the burial of ○○ho Lake against Defendant 5.

2) The remaining Defendants except Defendant 16 Company (Defendant 16 Company and Defendant 4 Company)

As follows, the sentence imposed by the court below on the remaining Defendants except for Defendant 16 Company (In the case of Defendants 16 and 4 Company) is too unreasonable.

A) Defendant 1 (captain, 36 years of imprisonment)

In light of the fact that the damage caused by the accident in this case has increased, the negligence of Defendant 16 and the Korean Shipping Association contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case, and Defendant 1 recognized the crime and reflects the crime, and the punishment of the court below is too heavy.

B) Defendant 2 (one chief mate, 20 years of imprisonment)

Defendant 2 was a first-class mate, but it was difficult for him to be engaged in structural activities independently without the captain’s instruction, and did not have proper authority to pay wages, and it is unreasonable to set a substantial difference according to the class in sentencing because there was no big difference with other seafarers, and there was no negligence on abandonment, and there was no faithful education and training for seafarers, and support for wife and four children, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too heavy.

C) Defendant 3 (2 chief mate, 15 years of imprisonment)

In light of the fact that Defendant 3 recognized the commission of crime, the fact that the defendant 3 made efforts to rescue passengers while communicating with Jindo VTS, and that the defendant 3 was able to work for the rescue of passengers, and that the defendant 1 was supporting the wife and the remaining, the punishment of the court below is too heavy.

D) Defendant 4 (third mate, imprisonment with prison labor for ten years)

In light of Defendant 4’s seafarer’s career, family relation (a woman between 2 and 3) etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy.

E) Defendant 5 (Thile, 10 years of imprisonment)

The punishment of the court below is too heavy in light of the fact that Defendant 5 had no criminal record for the same kind and was in the lowest position among the tidal water.

f) Defendant 6 (Voyage, 7 years of imprisonment)

Defendant 6 was on board ○○○ on the day immediately before the instant accident occurred, and was in a state of being unable to normally walk at the time of the crash accident around March 2014, and Defendant 6’s punishment is too heavy in view of the fact that the captain, at the steering house, maintained the communications with the Jindo VTS and was engaged in the rescue and rescue of passengers.

G) Defendant 7 (Trucking, 5 years of imprisonment)

In light of the status of Defendant 7, who was the captain of the ship, and the fact that Defendant 7 had been engaged in the rescue and relief of passengers after the escape of the ship, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy.

H) Defendant 8 (Thile, 5 years of imprisonment)

Defendant 8’s punishment is too heavy in view of the fact that Defendant 8 rescueed some passengers and supported the wife and two children with disabilities of class 4 with physical disability after the escape of the ship.

i) Defendant 9 (head of agency, 30 years of imprisonment)

Considering the fact that Defendant 9 recognizes all the crime of abandonment resulting in death and injury, the fact that Defendant 9 did not think of the rescue work for passengers due to the state of the public situation at the time, and the career, family relation, etc. of the above Defendant, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy.

(j) Defendant 10 (one chief engineer officer, five years of imprisonment)

In light of the fact that Defendant 10 failed to receive rescue instructions from a superior seafarer, and the ○○-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho

(k) Defendants 11, 13, and 14 (3rd official officer officer, early number, early number, and 5 years of imprisonment)

Considering that the above Defendants are less and less liable than the captain, chief engineer, and mates, and in particular, it is unreasonable to sentence the same punishment as Defendant 7 and Defendant 8 of the steering boat, which could have been able to grasp the situation in the steering boat, the lower court’s punishment is too heavy.

(l) Defendant 12 (Assistant Captain, 5 years of imprisonment)

Defendant 12’s work experience in passenger ships is short and the first boarding of ○○ on the day immediately before the instant accident occurred; the sentence imposed on Defendant 16’s officers and employees of Defendant 16 (Nonindicted Company 4) and the cooking department and clerical department employees of Defendant 16 are too heavy in light of the following: (a) Defendant 12’s work experience in passenger ships; (b) Defendant 16’s officers and employees were sentenced to the punishment; (c) Defendant 16’s cooking department and clerical department employees

m) Defendant 15 (Accompeting, 5 years of imprisonment)

In light of the fact that faithful education and training for seafarers was not conducted, the sentence imposed on the executives and employees of the defendant 16 company (the non-indicted 4 company) and the cooking records and office employees of the defendant 16 company (the non-indicted 4 company) are too heavy in the sentence of the court below in light of the circumstances that were not prosecuted and the defendant's age (the age of 62 years).

2. Ex officio determination

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the remaining Defendants except for the public prosecutor and the defendant 16 company (the company other than the public prosecutor: the company other than the defendant 4 company) is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor. The public prosecutor changed the facts charged by the defendant 2 in the first instance trial into the second preliminary charges, and added the facts of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., due to the escape from the ship traffic accident after the first preliminary charges, and added the "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc.," the applicable provisions of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc., of Specific Crimes, and Article 268 of the Criminal Act, respectively, to the name of the first preliminary offense, were added to the "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and the court applied for the amendment of the indictment as of April 7, 2015.

Although the judgment of the court below on Defendant 2 had a ground for the above ex officio reversal, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant 2's part of the judgment of the court below and the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant 2's part of the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court of this court. The prosecutor's assertion and Defendant 2, including Defendant 16

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles

A. As to murder and attempted murder (as to Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 9 Note 5)

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 9, as indicated in the facts stated in the lower judgment on the facts constituting the crime of paragraph (6) of the same Article, were waiting in the ship without waiting the victim’s reliance on the information broadcast, and could sufficiently rescue the passengers, etc., and did not take any rescue measures against the passengers, etc. even though the victims were waiting in the ship, in the situation where the victims were waiting in the ship, the passengers, etc. were unable to get out of the ○○ho Lake, and the passengers, etc. were aware of the fact that they were able to get out of the ship. At around 09:38, around 09:39, Defendant 9: (a) 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 were to have the passengers, etc. to get out of the corridor of the ship; and (b) were to have the passengers, etc. informed of the fact that they were able to get out of the ship.

As a result, the above Defendants conspired together with the victim 303 and the victim non-indicted 3 (the South and the 57 years old) indicated in attached Table 1, such as the victim Ma○○ (the South and the 16 years old) and the victim 152 victims listed in attached Table 2, such as the victim Ma○○ (the 40 years old and the 40 years old and the 57 years old), were killed by leaving the sea around that time. However, the above victims did not die with the wind salvaged by the piracy, etc.

2) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the above Defendants not guilty of the crime of murder and attempted murder on the ground that it is not sufficient to recognize that the above Defendants had an intention to make a deliberation beyond recognizing the possibility of the victims' death due to their own act beyond the awareness of the possibility of the victims' death. In light of the following circumstances, the court below acquitted them on the crime of murder and attempted murder.

A) Defendants 1, 2, and 3

(1) In light of the fact that Defendant 2, Defendant 3, etc. requested rescue by joining with Jeju and Jindo VTS immediately after the accident, and notified the office members of the awareness that the old rescue arrives ten minutes after around 09:26, the above Defendants wished to be rescued together with passengers.

(2) Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 confirmed the commencement of rescue activities by hearing the sound of the helicopter that began the salvage operation from around 09:30 in the steering house, or witnessing the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view of the view

(3) At the time of the arrival of the rescue efforts, Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 3 to get passengers to get off the ship, and Defendant 3 told Defendant 3 to escape from the ship to the chief of Nonindicted 6’s office.

(4) It is not recognized that the above Defendants, who were the pilothouse, should not get the passengers to get rescued prior to each other, or should have the passengers escape first.

B) Defendant 9

(1) At the time Defendant 9 went to the steering house, both the captain and the mate appeared to be the steering house, and Defendant 2 also knew that Defendant 2 requested rescue through a ultra-frequency radio communication (hereinafter “VHF”).

(2) At the time when the crew members including Defendant 9 escape from the engine department’s corridor to the third floor entrance, the rescue helicopter arrived at and started rescue activities. The rescue activities commenced upon arrival of the degree of salvage.

(3) The victims, who were passengers, did not know their status, and could have been expected to rescue from the sea.

3) The judgment of this Court

A) Defendant 1

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, Defendant 1, the captain, beyond recognizing the possibility of the death of passengers, etc. due to his own act, may be deemed to have been an internal intent to allow the death. Therefore, Defendant 1’s willful negligence of murder on passengers, etc. is acknowledged.

(1) Legal authority and responsibility as captain

Article 45 of the Maritime Safety Act provides that "no person shall interfere with or interfere with the professional judgment of a captain for the safety of a ship." Article 6 of the Seafarers Act provides that "the captain shall command and supervise seamen and may issue orders necessary to perform the duties of the captain to persons in a ship." Article 22 of the Seafarers Act provides that the captain shall have the authority to manage the safety of a ship and the crew. In addition, Article 10 of the Seafarers Act provides that "the captain shall not leave the ship from the time of loading of cargo or boarding of passengers until the loading of cargo or landing of passengers," and Article 11 of the Seafarers Act provides that "the captain shall take all necessary measures for the rescue of human lives, the ship, and the cargo if there is an imminent danger on the ship." As seen above, as seen in the captain's legal authority and duty, Defendant 1 also plays the most essential role in the rescue of passengers as the captain of ○○.

(2) Waiver of the master’s role in rescue operations or passenger safety

Defendant 1 was in the captain’s room and her body moved to the steering room immediately after the accident, and her body was passive in accordance with the proposal of Defendant 2, Defendant 3, etc., and did not take active direction for the rescue of passengers. In the situation where Defendant 2, Defendant 3, etc. were waiting for the rescue squad while waiting for the rescue team after the arrival of the rescue team, it was inevitable for Defendant 1 to check the current situation of passengers through the staff of the staff of the rescue team and discuss how to rescue passengers when the rescue team arrives with the crew. Furthermore, Defendant 3 did not take all the above actions, even though around 09:25, “In order for Defendant 1 to have the captain’s thickness, the captain’s thickness, the captain’s thickness, and the captain’s rapid response to the passengers, etc. 1, as soon as possible, did not take an adequate direction for the rescue of passengers.”

Even if there were no aspects of a sudden accident, it is difficult to understand that Defendant 1, who had worked as a captain from around 1983 to the captain or first mate, had worked on board a coastal passenger ship, etc. (the most of the above work experience is the captain’s career) for 27 years and 9 months (the most of the above work experience is the captain’s career), and Defendant 1, who had worked as a captain from March 2013 to the Incheon- Jeju Jeju- Jeju-do navigation route, did not think of the passengers due to lack of mind.

(3) Non-existence of the instruction to get off the ship

Although the lower court acknowledged that Defendant 1’s passengers had ordered the passengers to get out of the ship, it is reasonable to view that the first instance court and the lower court did not have ordered the passengers to get out of the ship, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court. Even if the first instance court did not respond to the order to get out of the ship, the said order was merely a formality and ambiguous instruction of the passengers to get out of the ship.

(A) Even when Defendant 1 et al. was to get out of the ship’s atmosphere instead of the get out of the ship.

As acknowledged by the court below, around 08:58, Defendant 3 instructed Nonindicted 6 to “in-house air reception reception” of passengers to the captain of the deck, and heard around 10 minutes after the Jindo VTS, and also informed the employees of the department with no charge of electricity, and Defendant 3’s above announcement was sent to the employees of the department with the same contents. However, the lower court’s order to “in-house air reception reception reception” through Defendant 3’sless electricity was still continued to be sent to the employees of the department with no charge until around the time when Defendant 1 et al. was ○, but it was difficult to readily understand that Defendant 3’s air reception instruction was not sent to the employees of the department with no charge to the employees of the department, considering that it was possible for Defendant 1 et al. to deliver the said order to the employees of the department with no charge of electricity reception to the employees of the department with no charge of electricity reception, and that it was possible for Defendant 3 to deliver the order to the department employees without charge of electricity reception.

(B) There was no measure accompanying the instruction to get off the ship.

If the passengers, etc. were to have been ordered to get off the ship, the measures accompanying the order to get off the ship, i.e., the passengers’ request to get off the ship, etc., and the measures to get out the ship to get out of the ship, and the measures to get out of the ship to get out of the ship. However, the measures taken by Defendant 1, etc. were not taken immediately after the order to get out of the ship or to get out of the ship. Rather, Defendant 1, etc. were first to get out of the passengers, etc. to get out of the ship.

(C) lack of credibility of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6’s statement asserting that there was an instruction to get off the ship.

Defendant 1’s statement related to the order to get off the ship is not consistent with the existence of the order, time, method, etc., and is inconsistent with the statements made by other Defendants, including Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 (it is difficult to readily accept that Defendant 1’s order to get off the ship was not accompanied by, or confused with, whether or not the order was issued or not, or the method to get off the ship. In light of the importance of the order to get off the ship, there is a conflict between two parties as to whether Defendant 3 reported the order to get off the ship to get off the ship after getting off the ship. In addition, the statements made by Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6, who asserted that the order to get off the ship was made from the investigation stage, are inconsistent with the location, frequency, timing, method, etc. of the order to get out the ship, or the statements made by investigation agency

Furthermore, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 7, together with the steering house, stated in the investigation agency, the lower court, and the lower court and the first instance court that Defendant 1’s order to abandon the ship or Defendant 3’s order to deliver the said order to the employees of the office. Defendant 3 stated to the effect that Defendant 3 had repeatedly talked with Defendant 4 or Defendant 7, without any response, on the part of the instant court, that “the passengers would escape.” However, it is difficult to easily understand that Defendant 4 or Defendant 7 could not have heard the said order. In addition, the lower court stated that Defendant 1’s order to escape from the steering house, which had been near the entrance of Defendant 1 at the time of the accident, did not appear to have ordered the captain to escape from the ship on the part of the crew.

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6, who asserted that the captain of the ship, etc. was instructed to get out of the ship, are exposed to serious criticism when the captain and the crew of the ship, who first got out of the ship without the instruction of the captain to get out of the ship. As such, Defendant 4 and Defendant 7, who were aware that the captain and the crew of the ship were in an objective and neutral position, did not take any instruction of the captain to get out of the ship, are more reliable.

Considering the above, it is difficult to believe that Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 5, and Defendant 6 were given instructions to the passengers to get off the ship.

(D) The problems of Defendant 3’s communication with VTS

At around 09:37, Defendant 3 broadcasted to the question, “Is the situation of flooding?” “Is to check the flooding demand of Jindo VTS, all passengers are close to the upper 50 meters above the upper shores at present, and only those who are able to escape on the port side at present, and attempted to escape on the port side at present. It is not easy to move to the present situation.” However, it is confirmed that the above communications stated that “Is to move to the present situation.” However, unlike the above communications, it is difficult to say that the passengers did not actually go to the broadcast, and that only “Is to escape” should only “Is to escape from the whole.” In light of the above, it is difficult to consider the foregoing as the basis for the above communications’s instructions on the passengers.

(4) At the time of the escape of the ship, thorough examination of the safety of the passengers, such as failure to perform rescue operations, etc.

Defendant 1, even though 40 passengers waiting in the ship in accordance with the order of waiting in the ship was out of the ○○, where the passengers were waiting in the ship and were forced to see it, he did not divide into Madar with respect to the safety of the passengers. At around 09:48, Defendant 1 did not first take emergency measures such as guiding the passengers to get out of the ship, but did not take the minimum measures for the rescue of the passengers, such as calling the passengers to speak about the situation of the waiting in the ship at around 09:48, even though he did not know that the passengers were the captain, the passengers did not know the situation of the ship at around 00, and did not reveal the status of the passengers until he was out of the scene of the accident, even if he did not have any interest in the rescue of the passengers.

(5) The equivalences with infringement of legal interests by this act in light of the exclusive and exclusive status of the passenger rescue as captain.

As seen earlier, the Maritime Safety Act and the Seafarers’ Act, etc., grant the captain the authority to take measures to rescue the lives of the passengers, etc. at the time of the instant accident, such as determining whether or not the passengers were to escape from the ship and the timing and methods thereof, and ordering the passengers to take emergency measures to rescue the lives of the passengers, etc., and the said authority and status could not be performed by anyone. Nevertheless, Defendant 1 did not take any measures, such as ordering the passengers to escape from the ship.

Defendant 1 was in the position of the fire commander called up to the scene of a high-rise building fire or in the position to prevent patients who had been placed in the emergency room at night from being on duty equivalent to the only duty doctor who could take measures to be taken by the emergency room.

Defendant 1’s timely action to get off the ship or to get off the ship to get off the ship on the deck, etc. was possible in a relatively simple and easy way, such as the broadcast equipment in the steering boat or the information on the telephone, the direction to the office room through electricity, and the use of emergency bells. At the time, the passengers, etc. were able to escape by themselves according to their awareness that the passengers, etc. could get out of the ship according to the command of Defendant 1, the passengers, etc. were waiting to wait for the rescue force on the ○○ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho. However, without any particular measures, Defendant 1 did not take any rescue measures even after the passengers, etc. to get off the ship on the ○-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho.

B) Defendants 2 and 3

In light of the circumstances stated in the lower judgment, including the part on the order of the captain to rescue passengers, the first instance court, and the first instance court’s order, and the first instance court’s order, and the first instance court’s order to rescue passengers to the extent to which the first instance court, including the first instance court’s order to rescue passengers, were in a position to actively take measures for the rescue of passengers against the first instance crew, and the first instance court’s order to rescue passengers to the first instance court, and the second instance crew, the first instance court did not actively help the first instance court to consider the first instance court’s order to rescue passengers from the first instance crew. However, it is difficult for the first instance court to readily conclude that the first instance court’s order to rescue passengers from the first instance crew to the first instance crew to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s order to rescue passengers from the first instance crew to the first instance crew. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the first instance crew.

C) Defendant 9

In addition to the circumstances indicated in the lower judgment, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 9 had the intention of the first instance court to allow the death of passengers at the time of the captain of the vessel on the ground that: (a) the captain was a captain under the command and supervision of the captain, and was in a position to be unable to take active measures for the rescue of passengers without the captain’s instruction; and (b) the head of the agency directed the engine crew; and (c) the person in charge of operating and managing the engine engine and electric installations in the engine room on the ship; and (d) there was little opportunity for the captain or the crew on the ship to exchange with passengers

4) Sub-committee

Of the judgment of the court below, the part which judged that it is difficult to recognize the willful negligence of the murder committed against Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 9 is justifiable. However, even if the willful negligence of the murder was recognized with respect to Defendant 1, the judgment of the court below which judged otherwise is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the prosecutor’s allegation in this part of the judgment is justified only for the part of Defendant 1 (Provided, That the part which was used again with respect to the part which was reversed). 2. Of the part on Defendant 1’s murder committed against Defendant 1, the causal relationship between Defendant 1’s act and the death of the victim Nonindicted 3 cannot be acknowledged, and the prosecutor’s appeal against this part is rejected).

B. Violation of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act (the defendant 16 company (the defendant 4 company) and other defendants except the defendant 16 company

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

The captain and crew members of a ship who have caused an accident shall take necessary measures to promptly rescue persons in distress even if there is no request.

around 08:48 on April 16, 2014, 08: (a) around 08:48, the Chonam-do Chonam-gun’s Chonam-gun lost its restitution at the sea of 1.8 nautical miles northwestdo; and (b) Ma○○, a passenger, was in distress. The above Defendants were the captain and crew of the ship that caused the accident as stated in paragraphs (4) through (5) of the criminal facts stated in the lower judgment, but did not take necessary measures for the rescue of human life, such as promptly evacuation of the distressed passengers, as stated in paragraph (6) of the criminal facts in the lower judgment.

Accordingly, the above Defendants did not take measures necessary to promptly rescue persons in distress.

2) Provisions regarding the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act

(1) The purpose of this Act is to prescribe matters necessary for the search, rescue, salvage and protection of persons in distress at sea or inland waters, ships, aircraft, water leisure crafts, etc. and contribute to the protection of public welfare. The definitions of terms used in this Act are as follows:

3) The judgment of the court below

In light of the form and text of Articles 18 and 15(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act, the lower court determined that it is reasonable to interpret that a person who bears the duty of rescue pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act is the captain, captain, etc. of “a neighboring vessel, etc.” and that “a neighboring vessel, etc.” does not constitute “a neighboring vessel, etc.” as the subject of a request for rescue, and determined that the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act is not applicable to the above Defendants, who are the captain, crew, etc. of the ○○-in vessel itself.

4) The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below in light of the following points.

A) Violation of the logical interpretation of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act

The court below interpreted “ship near the distress site” and “ship in distress” as conflicting concepts under Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the vicinity of the distress site. However, the court below should determine whether a ship that received a request for rescue is in the vicinity of the distress site as much as possible at the time of receiving the request for rescue. In the case of the court below, the court below’s interpretation of “in the vicinity of the distress site” cannot be deemed to constitute a ship near the distress site, and thus, the ship in distress cannot be deemed to constitute a ship near the distress site. Thus, even if the court below construed “ship near the distress site” and “ship in distress” as conflicting concepts under the main sentence of Article 18(1) as stated in the court below, it cannot be deemed that the “ship that provided the cause of the accident” under the proviso to Article 18(1) should be construed as a “ship near the distress site.”

B) Violation of balanced interpretation with other provisions of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act

Article 15(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act provides that “the captain, captain, or owner of a ship in distress shall be the person obligated to report the occurrence of an accident” under subparagraph 1, and Article 15(1)4 of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the case of a ship in distress, “the captain and crew of a ship in distress who provided the cause of an accident” do not use “the ship in distress” and “the ship that provided the cause of an accident” under Article 18 of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the case of a ship in distress. It is reasonable to interpret “the ship in distress” under Article 15(1)1 of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the case of a ship in distress as well as Article 15(1)1 of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the case of a ship in distress, there is no reason to impose a duty to report on the captain or captain of a ship in distress, unlike the crew of a ship in distress under Article 19 of the Rescue and Aid Act.

(C) the scope of recognition of a seafarer’s duty to rescue is narrow and there is a structural gap accordingly;

In accordance with the interpretation of the court below, the captain and crew of a ship in distress shall have no duty to rescue even when the captain and crew of the ship in distress voluntarily provided the cause of the accident to the captain of the ship in distress, and further, if there is no other ship in the vicinity of the accident scene, the situation where the person in distress is unable to receive rescue may cause a gap in the structure. In addition, since crew members of the ship in distress are not obligated to report even when they voluntarily provided the cause of the accident to the ship in distress, if the captain is not aware of the occurrence of the accident, the accident cannot be reported and the person in

D) Interpretation in violation of the purpose of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act

As seen in the relevant regulations, the Rescue and Aid at Sea and inland waters Act was enacted for the purpose of protecting people’s lives, bodies, and property from accidents and contributing to the promotion of public welfare by prescribing matters necessary for the search, rescue, salvage, and protection of people, ships, aircraft, water leisure crafts, etc. in distress at sea and inland waters. The interpretation of the lower court is inconsistent with the aforementioned purpose

5) Sub-committee

Although the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act applies to the above Defendants, who are the captain and crew of the above Defendants, who are the captain and crew of the above Defendants, who are “ship in distress” and “ship that caused an accident.” However, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted Defendant 2 of the charges of violating the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act on the ground that Defendant 2’s non-guilty part (which is once again used for the destruction part) was in violation of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act on July 5, 200, is justifiable. Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted Defendant 2 of the charges of violating the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act on the ground that it did not constitute a crime. Accordingly, the lower court’s judgment on

C. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (defendants 1, 4, and 5)

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 jointly, as indicated in the lower judgment, did not take measures to rescue passengers and other crew members waiting for rescue, even in waiting for rescue on the ○○ Ship, and did not take measures to escape and escape from the said ship, on April 16, 2014, when, around 08:48, the occupational negligence as indicated in paragraphs (4) and (5) of the facts constituting the crime as indicated in the lower judgment, Defendants 1, 4, and 5 were to have sunken ○○ from the 1.8 nautical milesdo from the Chonam-do,

Accordingly, even though 456 victims, etc., who were on board ○○○ jointly, were placed in the sea or detained in the buried hull, the above Defendants escaped without taking necessary measures to promptly rescue the victims in distress, and 303 victims and non-indicted 3 (Nam, 57 years old) of the victim, such as the victim 1 ○○○ (Nam, 16 years old), etc. and the victim 303 victims and non-indicted 3 (Nam, 57 years old) indicated in the victim list I, such as the victim 303 victims and the victim 152 victims indicated in the victim list II, such as the victim 1, 40 years old, who suffered injuries of adaptation disorder, such as shoulder, arms, knee, knee, and feas.

2) Provisions pertaining to the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act

2. Where the captain or crew of a ship commits a crime referred to in Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to traffic of the ship referred to in Article 2 of the Maritime Safety Act, which is included in the main sentence, and runs away without taking measures referred to in the proviso to Article 18 (1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act, such as aiding and abetting victims, the person shall be punished by the following aggravated punishment:

3) The judgment of the court below

In full view of ① the legislative intent and progress of the crime of aiding and abetting traffic accidents as stipulated in Article 5-12 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, ② the literal meaning of the provision of the crime of aiding and abetting traffic accidents, ③ the meaning of the special law compared to the general law, ④ the systematic structure of the crime of aiding and abetting traffic accidents in comparison with the provisions of other Acts under the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the crime of aiding and abetting traffic accidents in the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act is a basic crime that is punished where a person who takes relief measures pursuant to the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in other cases where the captain and crew of a “ship causing an accident” did not take necessary rescue measures, namely, where a person who commits an offense under Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the case where an accident was committed by occupational negligence or gross negligence) but escape is not applicable to the captain and crew of the above Defendants.

4) The judgment of this Court

The judgment of the court below that Article 5-12 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act does not apply to the above Defendants, who are the captain and crew of ○○-ho, who are the captain and crew of the above Defendants themselves falling under the “Distress vessel” itself is not acceptable in light

A) The principal agent of the ship traffic accident attempted

Article 1 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act provides that "the purpose of this Act is to contribute to the maintenance of sound social order and the development of the national economy by providing for aggravated punishment, etc. for specific crimes as prescribed by the Criminal Act, the Customs Act, the Punishment of Tax Evaders, the Framework Act on Local Taxes, the Creation and Management of Forest Resources Act, and the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.," and Article 5-12 of the same Act provides that "the captain or crew of the relevant ship who commits a crime as prescribed in Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to traffic of the ship under Article 268 of the Maritime Safety Act as the subject of the crime of aiding and abetting traffic accidents in accordance with Article 268 of the Maritime Safety Act." As such, Article 5-12 of the same Act provides that "the captain or crew of the relevant ship who commits a crime as prescribed in Article 268 of the Criminal Act shall be construed as the subject of such crime

In a member’s question about Article 5-12 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act, the subject of the act is “ship operator” as “ship operator,” and the content of the measure is “in the case of collision with each ship” as “in the case of collision with each ship’s captain, Article 12(15) of the Seafarers’ Act. The subject of the measure is changed to “ship captain or crew” on the ground of the uncertainty of the concept of “ship operator” and the illegality of the measure obligation, and the content of the measure obligation is also changed to the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid Act. Considering the above, it is reasonable to deem that Article 5-12 of the above Act cited the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid Act in order to clarify the “matters of the measure obligation required for the captain or crew,” and it is difficult to interpret it as limiting the subject of the

B) Interpretation error regarding Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act

Even if the subject of the crime of aiding and Aid at Sea and in the River Act is limited to a person who is required to take relief measures pursuant to the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act, that is, the captain and crew of a ship that provided the cause for an accident, as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the violation of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the Act on the Protection and Aid at Sea and in the River, and the “ship in distress” can be deemed as the “ship that provided the cause for an accident” even if the ship in distress was in question, the captain or crew of the ship may be the subject of the

5) Sub-committee

Although Article 5-12 of the Specific Crimes Aggravated Punishment Act applies to Defendant 1, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5, a captain or crew who escaped without taking relief measures despite having committed a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to the transportation of a ship, the lower court’s judgment is unreasonable: Provided, That the lower court’s judgment that found Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 not guilty of the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendants 4 and 5 on the ground that it is difficult to recognize occupational negligence related to the steering of the above Defendants on the same ground as stated in the following 4(b)(C) is justifiable. Ultimately, the lower court’s judgment on this part of the judgment is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine on only part of Defendant 1, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the Prosecutor’

D. The point of the burial of occupational ships (Defendant 1)

1) The judgment of the court below

원심은 선장의 직접 지휘의무를 규정하고 있는 선원법 제9조 주16) 의 취지와 선원법 제9조 위반의 경우 형사처벌을 하고 있는 점을 고려하여 위 규정에서 정하고 있는 ‘그 밖에 선박에 위험이 생길 우려가 있는 때’는 입·출항 시 또는 협수로를 지날 때와 대등할 정도로 위험 발생의 우려가 명백한 경우를 의미하는 것으로 해석된다고 판단하면서, ① ○○호가 기울어진 시점 및 지점에서의 조류의 세기 및 형태, ② ○○호 주변 선박 통행량, ③ 사고 지점의 위치(협수로인 ▒▒▒▒를 빠져나온 곳), 수심, 날씨 및 바람이나 파도의 정도, ④ 같은 구간에 대한 피고인 4, 피고인 5의 운항 경험 등에 비추어 보면, 검사가 제출한 증거만으로는 피고인 1의 직접 지휘의무 위반 사실을 인정하기 어렵다고 판단하면서 피고인 1의 직접 지휘의무 위반의 점을 업무상과실선박매몰의 범죄사실에서 제외하였다.

2) The judgment of this Court

Examining the circumstances, such as the reasoning of the court below duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor. Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's allegation is without merit.

E. The death or injury caused by abandonment (the defendant 16 company (the defendant 4 company)

1) The part concerning the legal grounds for the occurrence of legal protection obligations

A) proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act

As seen in the judgment of the court below, the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act (hereinafter “the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act”) is difficult to view the Defendants as grounds for legal duty of rescue for the captain and crew of the captain of the ship in distress, and the part that the Defendants are obligated to rescue passengers pursuant to Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the case of the above Defendants is excluded from criminal facts. However, as seen in the judgment of the court of this case, the above judgment of the court below is not acceptable, and the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the case of Article 18(3) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the case of the above Defendants, who are the captain and crew of the captain of the above ○○-in-in-ship, who are captain and crew of the above Defendants

B) ○○ Operation Management Regulations

(1) The judgment of the court below

For the following reasons, the lower court determined that the duties owed by the crew pursuant to the operation management rules of ○○○ cannot be deemed as legal protection obligations of the crime of abandonment, and excluded the above Defendants from criminal facts that the said Defendants are obliged to rescue passengers pursuant to the operation management rules of ○○○○.

(A) In order to be recognized as a “person legally obligated” who is the subject of abandonment according to the principle of clarity derived from the principle of no crime without the law, the legal norm must be defined by the law so that anyone can expect who is the subject of the crime and who is the subject of any obligation.

(B) In full view of the language and text of Article 21 of the Marine Transportation Act, the purpose and purport of the Marine Transportation Act, legislative history, scope of persons subject to sanctions under the Marine Transportation Act, and relationship with other legal norms, such as the Maritime Safety Act, it is difficult to interpret that Article 21 of the Marine Transportation Act delegated the same to the enforcement rules to require the operators of coastal passenger transportation services to establish a safety management system for the operators of coastal passenger transportation services, and to impose the obligation to

(C) Interpretation of the provisions of Articles 15-2 and 2-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act that stipulate that “emergency duties of a seafarer shall be included in the operation management regulations in the event of an emergency, such as a marine accident, goes beyond the limit of delegated legislation.”

(2) The judgment of this Court

In light of the relevant legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor. Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is without merit.

2) Part concerning the part of the victim's injury resulting from abandonment

A) The judgment of the court below

On October 1, 2014, the lower court excluded this part of the injury from the crime of abandonment on the ground that: (a) some of the injuries described in the attached Table Nos. 2, 4, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, 39, 40, 41, 44, 59, and 61 of the victim list Nos. 3, 2, 12, 15, 16, 18, 20, 24, 26, 39, 40, 41, 44, 44, 59, and 61 of the attached Table Nos. 3 of the Victim List

B) The judgment of this Court

(1) In the case of each victim listed in Nos. 2, 4, 12, 24, 41, 44, 59, and 61 of the annexed Table Nos. 3, 4, 12, 24, 41, 59, and 61, the prosecutor did not submit additional evidence at the trial of the court. According to the court below’s statement or statement of the court below, which is the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below (No. 4, 4, 12, 12, 59, 59, 61, 61, 61) and the police statement or statement against the above victims, it is difficult to conclude that the above victims suffered an injury other than the crime committed by the defendants.

(2) In the case of the victim Kim○, as indicated in No. 3 18 No. 18 of the victim List No. 3, the court below determined that the victim Kim○’s legal statement of Kim○○, the police statement of Kim○○, and the statement of Kim○○ additionally submitted in the trial of the party branch, and that the victim Kim○○ was injured by the Defendant’s abandonment at the wind, and it is difficult to conclude that the above injury was caused by the Defendant’s abandonment.

(3) In the case of the victim's leapway 3 No. 40 listed in the annexed Table 3 of the victim's sight list No. 40, according to the court below's trial statement and the police's statement on the leapway ○○, it is clear that the "eaks and 3 degrees pictures" of the court below, excluding the criminal facts, is the victim's leapway's leapway's leapway's leapway's leapway'

(4) In the case of each victim listed in [Attachment 3] Nos. 15, 16, 20, 26, and 39 of the victim list Nos. 3, 15, 16, 20, 26, and 39, comprehensively taking account of the court below's court statement (the first order No. 16 Kim○, No. 20 Kim○○, No. 20) which is the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the police statement of the above victims, and the written statement of the above victims additionally submitted in the court below, the above victims are deemed to

C) Sub-determination

This part of the prosecutor's assertion is justified only for each victim mentioned in the No. 15, No. 16, 20, 26, and 39 of the List of Victims III.

3) Part on the crime committed against Nonindicted 3 of the missing person

A) The judgment of the court below

The court below found the defendant guilty of the crime of abandonment on non-indicted 3 of the victim's non-indicted 3, on the ground that, in light of the current status of the victim of the accident sinkinged by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which began to make use of ○○○○ Family with the investigation agency and the legal statement, and the fact that the male fell on the sea on the third floor at around 08:49, but the above male died or went missing, and considering the similarity between the age of the victim of the accident and the victim of the accident by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, unlike other missing persons, it cannot be deemed that the causal relationship between the act of abandonment and the result of the death

B) The judgment of this Court

Examining the facts established by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below in light of the legal principles as to causation, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as argued by the prosecutor. Furthermore, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have awareness of the fact that the victim non-indicted 3 was in a situation where the victim non-indicted 3 is in need of assistance at sea around the time when the defendant 16 company (the non-indicted 4 company), and therefore, it is just in the conclusion of the court below which acquitted the victim non-indicted 3 of the crime of abandonment against the victim non-indicted 3

4) Part on the preparation for the escape of Jeju VTS

The court below excluded the above communications from criminal facts on the ground that it is difficult to believe that Non-Indicted 10’s statement that Non-Indicted 10 instructed the captain to get off the ship at around 09:00, in light of the circumstance that Non-Indicted 10, who was in charge of the communication of Jeju VTS, did not record the details of the communication to get off the ship, and Non-Indicted 10, who was in charge of the communication to get off the ship at the time of the accident, was once again prepared on the PS radio communication of Jeju VTS, and that there was no other evidence to support the fact that there was the communication as above.

In full view of the circumstances such as the reasoning of the court below acknowledged by the evidence, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no error as alleged by the prosecutor. Therefore, the prosecutor’s assertion on this part is without merit

4. The judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendants 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15

A. homicide of the victim Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 (Defendant 9)

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

As stated in the facts of the crime of paragraph (6) of the judgment below, Defendant 9 predicted that the three floors of the No. 1 and Nonindicted 2 were flooded, and that the vessel will be returned to the vessel, when he was gathered with other engine crew members on the third floor as stated in the judgment of the court below. Defendant 9 knew that the victim, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 were neglected to the next corridor to the extent that their own movement is impossible, without being subject to any rescue measures, and that if the victim, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 were neglected to the extent that they could not move to the next corridor, they would result in the situation of benefiting from leaving the No. 1 and Nonindicted 2 caused the accident. Defendant 9 did not notify the fact that he was able to move Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, along with other engine crew members under his direction, and would have been able to receive rescue through deck, etc. around 09:39.

As a result, Defendant 9 did not take any relief measures despite the duty to rescue the victim Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, who had left the corridor of the engine room, thereby killing the victims by getting out of the sea around that time.

2) The judgment of the court below

The court below found Defendant 9 guilty of murder committed against Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 by Defendant 9 on the ground that he was aware that Defendant 9 had a duty to rescue the victim Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, a crew member of the same household, and was in a position to command the engine crew members of the third floor guest room as the head of the agency, and was in a position to rescue the victims, and was unable to rescue the victims without immediate rescue, but was dead due to the failure to rescue the victims from the sinking ○○ site where the victims were injured.

3) The judgment of this Court

In order to recognize Defendant 9’s guilty of the murder committed against Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, Defendant 9 must also have the intention of murder committed against the victims.

A) Relevant legal principles

In order to have dolusent intent as a subjective element of the constituent element of a crime, there is a perception of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, and furthermore, there is an internal intent to allow the risk of the crime. Whether the actor has accepted the possibility of the occurrence of the crime or not should be confirmed from the standpoint of the offender, taking into account how the general public evaluates the possibility of the occurrence of the crime based on specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act, which was externally revealed without depending on the statement of the offender (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do74, May 14, 2004, etc.).

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone exceeds the possibility that the victim Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 might have died due to his own act, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was an internal intent to allow the victim Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2.

(1) The victim non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2, who were the crew of the engine, such as the defendant 9, was deprived of the front side of the 3rd floor of the defendant 9 et al., and at the time, the defendant 9 was in the situation outside of the deck through the door on the port side, and was not directly viewed by the above victims. The victim non-indicted 2 was identified by the defendant 10 as to the victim non-indicted 2 and the victim non-indicted 1 by the defendant 14.

(2) Defendant 9 took measures, such as: (a) the victim Nonindicted 2 was reported by Defendant 10, immediately after the victim Nonindicted 2 fell from the port side’s corridor; and (b) the victim Nonindicted 2 was said to have been brain-dead; and (c) after the victim Nonindicted 1 fell from the victim, Defendant 14 was ordered to put the victim Nonindicted 1 on the side of the passage.

(3) 피고인 9가 퇴선할 당시 위 피해자들이 생존해 있었을 가능성이 있기는 하나, ① 피고인 10은 원심 법정에서 “피고인 9가 자신에게 ‘식당 아줌마 상처 부위를 다시 한 번 확인해 보라’고 하여 자신이 아줌마 어깨를 흔들었더니 아무 움직임이 없고 신음소리를 내지 않아서 기관장에게 ‘꼼짝도 하지 않습니다’라고 보고하였다”는 취지로 진술하였고, 이 법정에서도 “숨을 안 쉬고 미동도 없다는 것까지는 보고를 했다”는 취지로 진술하였으며, ② 피고인 11은 원심 법정에서 피해자 공소외 1의 상태에 대하여 “머리에서 피가 나고 의식이 없었으며, 신음을 하고 있지 않았고 전혀 미동이 없었다”는 취지로 진술하였고, 이 법정에서 피해자 공소외 2가 처음에는 살아있었으나, 그 이후에는 확실하지 않다는 취지로 진술하였으며, ③ 피고인 14는 원심 법정에서 피해자 공소외 1에 대하여 “안고 있을 때 아무런 움직임이 없었고 신음소리도 없었다. 숨을 쉬지 않았고 움직임이 없었다”는 취지로 진술하고 이 법정에서도 같은 취지로 진술하고 있는 점에 비추어 보면, 피고인 9가 피해자 공소외 1, 공소외 2가 좌현 쪽으로 떨어질 무렵에는 살아 있을 것이라고 생각하였더라도, 퇴선 무렵에는 위 피해자들이 사망하였을 수도 있다고 오해했을 가능성이 있다.

(4) At the time of Defendant 9’s omission, Defendant 9 did not actively have the victims left alone with the awareness of “I am at risk, I am at the time of leaving the victim,” and there was no other institutional crew suggesting that Defendant 9 would take back the said victims.

(5) Defendant 10 made a statement in the court of the court below to the effect that “at the time of the court of the court below, Defendant 10 would have caused a string house, offered that Defendant 2 would not go to the present time, but Defendant 9 would not go to the present.” However, Defendant 10 made a statement in this court to the purport that it may be confused with Defendant 9 who would have been able to go to the room and carry clothes for Defendant 9 by entering the room for Defendant 9.

4) Sub-committee

Although it is difficult to recognize the willful negligence of Defendant 9’s victim Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2 with respect to murder, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the premise that the above intentional negligence is recognized. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Defendant 9 is with merit.

(b) Burial of occupational ships (defendants 2, 4, and 5)

1) Determination on Defendant 2’s assertion

A) The judgment of the court below

The court below found that it was practically difficult for Defendant 2 to demand corrective measures against the executives of Defendant 16 company (the non-indicted 4 company) to take advantage of the fact that it was difficult for Defendant 2 to demand the corrective measures against the improper loading of cargo, but found that Defendant 2 was in charge of the loading of cargo from the time when Defendant 2 entered the port for the first time with a navigation experience of not less than 20 years; ② Nonindicted 15 and 16 on behalf of the director of the Maritime Operations Team of Defendant 16 company (the non-indicted 4 company) did not report that there was a problem related to the cargo from Defendant 2 at the time of departure from the court of the original trial; ③ Defendant 2 could not be deemed to have any special circumstance to the extent that it was impossible for Defendant 2 to have neglected to exercise any authority over loading of cargo or raise any objection; ④ Defendant 2 could not be deemed to have provided the safe loading of cargo in light of how the safe loading of the cargo of this case could be found to have been under the duty of care of Defendant 2.

B) The judgment of this Court

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there was no error as otherwise alleged by Defendant 2. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Defendant 2 is rejected.

2) Determination on Defendant 4 and Defendant 5’s assertion

A) Summary of this part of the facts charged

around 08:48 on April 16, 2014, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2, as indicated in paragraphs (4) through (5) of the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, caused the sinking of 476 passengers, etc. to ○○○○, etc. by occupational negligence, such as the reduction of the horizontal water, the loading of cargo, the shortage of cargo, and the shortage of gambling by Defendant 2, Defendant 5, Defendant 5, and Defendant 4’s wrong direction and supervision.

Accordingly, in collaboration with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 buried a ship in which a person exists through occupational negligence.

B) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that Defendant 5’s hull was rapidly made on the left side due to Defendant 5’s rapid rounding of ○○’s automatic identification device (hereinafter “AIS”), the report on the result of the Formulaula 1 in the city of the ▽▽▽▽△△△△ research institute (hereinafter “▽▽△△”) and the statement of Defendant 1, Defendant 4, and Defendant 9, etc., on the ground that Defendant 5’s act of using typology arbitrarily and neglecting the supervisory duty on the face of typical change constitutes occupational negligence. In so doing, the lower court recognized that Defendant 5’s arbitrary use of typile and Defendant 4 neglected to supervise typical change.

C) The judgment of this Court

The conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads to the judge’s conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the Defendants, it should be determined as the interests of the Defendants. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, there is still “reasonable doubt” as to “the normal operation of the steering gear at the time of the accident.”

(1) Whether Defendant 5, in the initial stage of “the initial course,” beginning on the course from 140 degrees to 145 degrees, was in progress, at least 15 degrees of her course

○○호의 예정 항로에 의하면, ▒▒▒▒를 통과해서 이 사건 사고가 발생한 병풍도 앞 지점까지는 항로를 130도에서 145도로 변경하는 변침구간에 해당한다. ○○호의 사고 당시 AIS 자료에 의하면, ○○호의 선수방위각이 08:44:15경 130도에서 증가하기 시작하여 08:46:22경 140도에 도달한 이후 08:48:38경까지 140도 방향을 2분 16초 이상 유지하였음이 확인되므로, 130도에서 140도까지의 변침 과정에서는 피고인 4의 변침 지시에 따라 피고인 5가 우현으로 조타하여 정상적으로 변침이 완료된 사실이 인정된다. 이후 피고인 4는 140도에서 145도로의 변침을 지시하였고 피고인 5는 위 지시에 따라 우현 5도 변침을 시작하였는데, 그 과정에서 갑자기 선수가 급격하게 우선회하는 현상이 발생하였다.

The advisory group of the Joint Investigation Headquarters, which analyzed the cause of the accident based on the AS data in 00 ○○, is presumed to have taken an advantage of at least 15 degrees as soon as the players rapidly, in the “report on the result of analysis of the cause of the sinking of passenger ship ○ ○○○,” where Defendant 5 was instructed to change the 145 degrees, and attempted to change the her position on the ground of the influence of algae, etc.

However, in light of Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4’s legal statement at the time of ordinary navigation, it was difficult to recognize that Defendant 5’s point of time of accident at the time of accident at the time of accident at the time of change from 140 degrees to 145 degrees, to 145 degrees in accordance with the direction of Defendant 4, the point of time of accident at the point of accident at the time of change to 140 degrees to 140 degrees to 145 degrees, where Defendant 5 did not have a great impact on the fluority of a large vessel, such as ○○○○, Non-Indicted 18’s legal statement at the lower court, Non-Indicted. 18’s research institute Nonindicted 18’s legal statement at the time of accident, which was about 00 degrees to 145 degrees.

In addition, since Non-Indicted 11, the original captain of ○○-ho, is very weak for Defendant 4, etc. to restore ○○-ho, the alteration is divided into not more than 5 degrees, must be done in advance, and the other is also used in advance. Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 knew that the restoration of ○-ho is not good, and Defendant 5 did not have any risk of collision with the other ship at the time. Thus, Defendant 5 did not have any special reason to see it at the time of the accident.

However, it has not yet been revealed that Defendant 5 had been trying to move rapidly from 140 degrees to 145 according to Defendant 4’s order, and the reason why the first player started to move rapidly (the first instance court also determined that Defendant 5 attempted to turn back in the direction on the port side by referring to Defendant 5’s “the first instance is faster than expected,” but Defendant 5 attempted to turn in the direction on the port side. However, Defendant 4’s words “by side” after hearing the words “by side” of Defendant 4, which was written in the direction where the second line of the second line of the second line of the second line of the second line of the second line of the second line of the second line of the second line of the second line of the second line of the second line of the second line of the second line of the second line of the latter.

(2) Possibility of abnormal operation of the steering gear;

① Defendant 3’s statement in the prosecutorial investigation that “the Defendant 5 saw to the effect that “the Defendant 5 saw to her to her more than what she had engaged in or to her to her boat,” ② Defendant 6’s statement in the court of original instance that “at the time of the occurrence of the accident, Defendant 5 told Defendant 5 that “at the time of leaving her boat to her left side, she fast back to the left side, she turned back to the left side, and she turned back to the left side,” ③ Defendant 9’s statement that “after Defendant 4’s alteration direction, she saw her inside, flab. o. h.,” and “when she started to her boat, she she did not come to her boat, she would have become more likely to her boat she started to her boat,” and that Defendant 4’s statement that Defendant 5 would not change one’s own will more than her one’s own will.”

(3) Possibility, such as sorano-dylling of valves

Soon valves are installed in a steering pressure system, where a valve is opened and closed in accordance with the changes in electric signal, and a valve is installed in a valve to control the flow of such a valve. In the steering gear, tyringing from the steering gear would lead to a pressure by opening and closing a valve on the soon valve by giving electrical signal to him/her, thereby causing a pressure and her pressure at that pressure. However, in the case of a worn-out vessel, it will continue to operate the valve up to 17) in the soon valve in the soon valve, regardless of its location, by continuing to operate the valve up to 3rd in the direction regardless of its operation.

In this case, even when Defendant 5 tried to change from 140 degrees to 145, if the Soranod's valve is found, Defendant 5 again 18), even if he placed the steering gear or uses the opposite vessel, the pressure may continue to occur, and even if it is used, she may return to 35 degrees her port, and due to its influence, ○○ho might have rapidly been on the part of ○ho Lake in the course of a change.

According to the "Report on the Results of Analysis of the Causes of the Accidents of Passenger Ship ○○ Head of the Joint Investigative Headquarters" of the Advisory Board, 08:49:13 (150 degrees of the defense of the players at 00 degrees of the accident) to 08:49:40 (the time when the defense angle of the players at 00 degrees of 184 to 184 degrees of the accident begins rapidly and rapidly) at the beginning of the meeting, the resistance based on the data of ○○ AS at ○○○ ○ ○○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 35 degrees of the 35 degrees of the construction of the ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ as follows. Rather, this is supported by the possibility that the 15 degrees of the ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 19 degrees of the disaster came to correspond to the resistance at the top of the fleet.

A person shall be appointed.

(4) Examination of the Prosecutor’s assertion that there is no possibility that the head of Sorano-don valves might have occurred.

The prosecutor expresses that ① the steering gear installed on the steering boat does not mean the steering gear of the steering gear, but also the actual engine. Defendant 1 stated not only the investigative agency but also the court of the court below that the steering gear 15 degrees high, ② Defendant 5 degrees high, Defendant 5, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8 stated that the steering gear of the steering boat was operated, ③ Defendant 4 stated that the steering gear of the steering boat, including Defendant 5, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8, did not break out on the day of the accident; ④ Defendant 4 responded to the question as to whether the other party’s “the steering gear was broken,” ④ Nonindicted 12, at the time of the accident, did not normally have broken the steering gear at the time of the accident; ⑤ Nonindicted 12, the head of the joint investigative headquarters, at the time of the accident, made a statement that the steering gear did not break out at the time of the accident; ② Nonindicted 12, who was at the time of the accident, did not turn out to the steering gear at the time of the accident.

However, in light of the following points, it is difficult to accept the prosecutor’s argument as it is.

① Although Defendant 1’s specific statement was made in the investigative agency and the court of the court below on the background leading up to Defendant 1’s view at the 21st trial of the court below, and it was possible to see the direction and location of 4 meters away from the experiment conducted on the 21st trial of the court below as a substitute for the steering house, Defendant 1 did not have a position immediately after the accident and was in the position of the pilot, and the distance from the piracy near the piracy where Defendant 1 was in the position of Defendant 1 to the arching place of the steering house is about 4 meters, and Defendant 1 did not use the arching place until the time. Thus, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant 1 was correct without any room to suspect the arching point of view.

(2) Even if a sorano-drum valve is found to have a high rise to a sorano-drum valve, the rasher's failure to drive as long as the rasher actually runs accordingly, and thus, the operation of the sorano-drum valve does not conflict with the high rise to the sorano-drum valve.

③ Even if ○○, including Defendant 5, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8, stated that the steering gear was not broken up by the accident, it is difficult to readily conclude that the steering gear was normally operated even between the accident’s moment alone.

④ According to Defendant 4 Kakao Stockholm’s message content (Evidence No. 393, Evidence No. 1372 or No. 1391), it is true that Defendant 4 sent an answer to the question “Iskn am?” “Isk am? Isk am? Isk am? Isk am? Isk am am? Isk am am? Isk am am? Isk am am? Isk am? Isk am am? Isk am? Isk am? Isk am? Isk am? Isk am? Isk am am? Isk am. Isk am. Isk am. Isk am? Isk am? Isk am am? Isk am? I cannot am amn me to the question of “Isk am? Isk am? I'k am..............”

⑤ Nonindicted 12, who majored in the hull movement and the structural doctor’s degree of 200 Formula 200, stated that there was no possibility of the operation or malfunction of the steering gear mainly by the power of the court below, among them.

④ Nonindicted 19, a witness of Defendant 4, made a statement in this court that he was in the place of her house when she had been left and re-entered. Since ○○○ was left and re-entered, the entire number of ○○○○○ was turned back after she was left in the port, according to the above statements made by Nonindicted 19, even if she was found to have been in the place of her house after her accident, the fact that she was in the place of her house after her accident is explained. As long as she was found to have not been in the place of her own house, the prosecutor did not submit materials to support her finding that she was in the place of her house. While the prosecutor asserted that Defendant 5 was in the place of her house after her accident, it is difficult for her prosecutor to find that she was in the place of her house and that she was in the place of her house to her own house without his own discretion when she was found to have been in the place of her house.

7) The Maritime Safety Tribunal's special investigation report also judged that there was no problem with the steering gear of ○○-ho, on the ground that Defendant 5's statement that the time of the accident had been lost normally at the time of the accident and that the ○-hoer was located at the bottom after the accident.

(5) Other propellers' possibility of running

Even if the steering gear function normally at the time of the instant accident, 00 ○○ head of the instant accident, even if the steering gear function normally, if the steering gear is two propellers and one other is the so-called “two one ambast vessel,” and if the two ambast vessels operate only the propeller on the port side with engines, etc., and the propeller on the port side is not in operation, ○○ head of the instant vessel may rapidly move ahead of others due to the difference in driving force.

D) Sub-committee

Of course, even based on evidence or existing evidence submitted by the counsel at this court, it cannot be readily concluded that a breakdown, such as a sudden breakdown of a valve in the steering gear, or a professional propeller, has occurred during the steering gear. If a close examination of related parts is conducted by lifting 00 on the seabed, the cause of the accident or mechanical trouble may be revealed. However, as the prosecutor bears the burden of proof in a criminal trial, if the cause of the accident is discovered, it is inevitable to determine the Defendants favorable to the Defendants. Therefore, insofar as there is reasonable doubt as there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the steering gear or propeller works normally at the time of the accident, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant 4 was negligent in performing the duty of supervision over the steering gear on the face of large angle and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 as a occupational negligence related to the steering, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by the Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 is with merit.

C. The death or bodily injury resulting from abandonment (the defendant 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15)

1) Claims relating to contractual duty to protect (defendants 5, 6, 7, and 8)

A) Defendant 6 did not prepare a contract after an interview on April 14, 2014 and on the next day on the following day, but was recognized as the first boarding of Defendant 6, Defendant 6 reported Defendant 6 to the Incheon Regional Maritime Port Authority as the crew of ○○, and Defendant 6 was on board as the crew of ○○ on the day immediately preceding the accident, and paid wages on the day on which he was on board. In light of the circumstances, it can be deemed that an implied employment contract was established between Defendant 6 and Defendant 16 (Nonindicted Company 4) on the port on the day of the accident.

B) Although Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8, the crew of ○○○, did not directly enter into a contract of carriage with passengers, they are obligated to perform or perform the contractual obligation to safely transport the passengers at the port of destination from Incheon, where they are departure, to the port of destination. If emergency situations such as the instant case occur during navigation, they are contractual obligation to take relief measures necessary for the safety of passengers. The contractual duty to protect the passengers to be borne by the said Defendants is related to the relief of the passengers at the time of occurrence of an accident, and its standard or scope is not limited as prescribed by the ○○ Navigation Management Rules, and its contents are not limited as stipulated under the ○○ Navigation Management Rules, and thus, are not exempt from the said contractual obligation.

C) Even if Defendant 7 attempted to approach the life raft on the port deck, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 7 fulfilled the contractual duty to protect passengers solely by doing so.

D) We do not accept this part of the allegation by Defendants 5, 6, 7, and 8.

2) The assertion that some victims do not constitute a person who is in need of assistance (Defendant 8)

A) The judgment of the court below

The court below determined that the victim's assistance was in need of assistance by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the case requiring assistance under Article 271 of the Criminal Act refers to a state in which the risks to his/her own life and body cannot be ruled out; (b) the ship was rapidly on the part of 09:47:35 after the ship was rapidly on the part of 09:50:35; (c) the 3rd rail of 4th floor was completely flooded on the part of 09:50:21; (d) the passengers waiting on the part of 3:4th floor were unable to get out of the ship due to his/her own force; (b) the passengers on the part of the passengers on board at the time were the elderly, the elderly, and the children who were injured while making use of the ship; and (c) the passengers were under imminent circumstances where the ship was missing at any time, at any time, were waiting for subsequent measures by the guide broadcasting to wait on the ship.

B) The judgment of this Court

Examining the circumstances, such as the reasoning of the lower judgment duly adopted and examined by the lower court in light of the legal doctrine and the record, it is reasonable to view that the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and it is reasonable to view that not only the elderly people who suffered from disease or disease but all passengers waiting in the ship are persons in need of assistance. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Defendant 8 is rejected.

3) The assertion related to the intention of abandonment (defendants 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15)

A) Determination on the defendants' assertion that they stayed in the steering house, including the defendants 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8

(1) The judgment of the court below

The court below acknowledged that some of the Defendants, including the above Defendants, stayed in the steering house, were taking measures, such as making a request for rescue through the VHF communication while staying in the steering house. However, in full view of the following circumstances, the court below acknowledged the Defendants’ intent to abandon their passengers, etc. on the ground that it was acknowledged that the said Defendants did not take necessary relief measures, even though they did not recognize that there would occur any danger to the lives and bodies of the passengers when waiting for the crew and passengers waiting for the following instructions of the steering house according to air broadcast on the ship, and that the said Defendants did not take necessary rescue measures in the event they did not take necessary measures.

(A) As the above Defendants are not good to restore ○○○○, it is difficult for passengers to easily restore ○○○ in the event of a cross slope, the situation where the passengers of ○○○ to escape from the ship could occur if they escape from the ship, and the passengers would be at the risk of life and body if they were waiting to take additional measures, and the passengers would be at the risk of leaving the ship in the situation where the passengers would not take measures to prepare to abandon the ship while waiting to the ship.

(B) The above Defendants came to know of the fact that they would have to get the passengers on board to get the ship to get the ship to get the ship to get the ship to get off the ship in the course of joining the captain of the Jindo VTS or △ Manaeline and to protect their passengers on board.

(C) Even after around 09:26, the Defendants were able to move on the front door raft or move to a zone where passengers are located. However, the Defendants were able to have been able to do so by not doing any such act with the fear of danger that may occur to themselves in the event they attempted to do so.

(2) The judgment of this Court

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the legal doctrine and the record admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the Defendants, who were the captain, to have been instructed by Defendant 1 to rescue passengers. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of the Defendants, including the Defendants 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, on the ground that the Defendants were not instructed by the Defendants, who were the captain, to rescue passengers, and even if the Defendants 8

B) The judgment on the defendants' assertion that they stayed in the third floor of the vessel, including the defendants 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, etc.

(1) The judgment of the court below

The court below acknowledged Defendant 12 on the first day before the accident occurred, that Defendant 12 on the part of Defendant 12 on the part of Defendant 12, Defendant 12, and Defendant 15 on the part of Defendant 1 on the part of Defendant 1 on the part of Defendant 3 on the part of Defendant 1 on the part of Defendant 3 on the part of Defendant 1 on the part of Defendant 3 on the part of Defendant 1 on the part of Defendant 3 on the part of Defendant 1 on the part of Defendant 3 on the part of Defendant 1 on the part of Defendant 3 on the part of Defendant 1 on the part of Defendant 3 on the part of Defendant 1 on the part of Defendant 3 on the part of Defendant 1 on the part of Defendant 3 on the part of Defendant 1 on the part

(A) Recognizing that the above Defendants were the critical situation where the passengers could get out of the ship, and known that the passengers were waiting to get out of the ship with the knowledge of the seriousness of the situation from the beginning of the accident, and that the passengers were aware of the fact that the passengers would not take measures to get out of the ship but take measures to get out of the ship. In light of the above, the Defendants knew that their passengers were in need of assistance.

(B) In recognition of the fact that the above Defendants, as a crew member, have to conduct rescue activities for passengers at the time of the occurrence of an emergency, they were able to wear life jackets for about 30 minutes without any rescue activities for passengers, and stayed in the corridor of the third floor engine room. Defendant 12 was able to observe how much water can occur through the port deck entrance, and thus, he was aware that the above Defendants, despite being aware of the duty to rescue for passengers, failed to perform such duty, thereby abandoning passengers in need of rescue.

Even in the case of Defendant 12, when waiting to get out of the captain’s corridor, it was difficult for the crew to control the situation of the whole area and the movement route with five crew members in light of the size of ○○ and the circumstances heed at the time when Defendant 12 did not hear the above statements. (3) Even if Defendant 12 was able to guide passengers by the crew on board, other crew members, other than the crew members, should take measures to let passengers get out of the life raft or the shooting bridge in order to get out of the crew. In light of the fact that Defendant 12 did not attempt to take such measures, Defendant 12 had no intention to take relief measures against the passengers.

(C) At around 09:37, the above Defendants were able to move on the port, and therefore, they were presumed to have been able to move on the ship sufficiently prior to that time. The above Defendants did not think that they were unable to move on the ship as in the steering house, but did not think that they were able to move on the ship at that time, and did not take relief measures by leaving their lives or on the sea due to their move.

Even in the case of Defendant 15, it is confirmed that Defendant 15, who, alone, got off on the port deck and was on board by directly moving to the scambling at the scamb and at the scambling of the 123 scambling, was unfolded without any particular issue, and Defendant 15 was not at the location of a serious injury to the extent that Defendant 15 was not at all

(2) The judgment of this Court

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the legal doctrine and the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. The Defendants did not receive an instruction from Defendant 1 or Defendant 9 to provide passengers with relief, and it cannot be said that there was no intent to abandon the Defendants. Accordingly, this part of the lower court’s allegation is rejected.

4) The assertion relating to the timing of the abandonment (Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8)

A) The judgment of the court below

The crime of abandonment leads to the occurrence of abstract danger to the life and body of the victims due to an abstract dangerous act. In the case of abandonment by omission, as seen in the instant case, it is the last time to eliminate the danger to the passengers by taking relief measures. However, in order for the passengers under 00 to obtain the escape route and to move to the shelter, a considerable time was required when considering the number of passengers, ○○, and the shelter site at the time, and there was a broadcast to guide passengers to wait in the ship at around 08:58 immediately after 00:58, and thus, the above Defendants, who were in the steering house, were waiting in the cabin, were waiting in the ship. Accordingly, at around 09:26, around 10 minutes after the Jindo VTS, the above Defendants did not directly or through its employees, and should have ordered the passengers to get out of the entrance, and should have ordered the passengers to get out of the entrance. Accordingly, the above Defendants did not take measures to rescue the passengers.

B) The judgment of this Court

Examining in light of the legal principles and records as to the time of abstract risk crimes, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. In addition, since the crew, including Defendant 8, constitute joint principal offenders of abandonment, it is not necessary to individually determine the time of completion according to the role of the Defendants, as alleged by Defendant 8. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8 is rejected.

5) As to the causation (defendants 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 14)

A) The Defendants’ abandonment and the causal relationship between the victims’ death

(1) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court acknowledged the causal relation between the abandonment of the said Defendants and the death of the victims on the ground that, in a case where, around 09:26, the said Defendants were to guide the passengers to get out of decks or to operate rescue equipment, such as life rafts, etc., the victim could have been alive, on the ground that all the victims could have been saved.

(A) Considering the water temperature (12.6 degrees) at the time of an accident and the anticipated time of human life (less than six hours at the temperature between latitude 10 to latitude 15, and less than three hours at the temperature between latitude 4 to 10 degrees) based on the International Aviation and Marine Search and Rescue Manual, it is determined that the passengers of ○○○○ were alive for a considerable period of time, even if the passengers of ○○ were placed on the sea by suffering from the life jackets.

(B) Considering the fact that Nonindicted 13, who moved life raft from the salvage at the time of the accident, did not feel much influence on the movement of life raft from the court, and stated that the ○○○○’s hull was in the role of blocking the life raft at the court (09:00 or 0.5 knots, 000, or 0.4No. 0.9No. 100, or 1.9No. 10:30) and that at the time of the accident, passengers were in the sea, leaving the sea without a big movement to the sea, and that at the time of the accident, at the time of the accident, Nonindicted 13, who moved life raft from the helicopter to the sea, did not feel much influence on the movement of life raft at the court, and that at the time of the accident, the ○○○’s hull was not fasted to the sea, even if passengers were out of the sea, it could have been found that it was out of the air of the vessel.

(C) In light of the following: (a) the time at which all vessels, including the 123 Magyeong-gu, Magyeong-gu, and Magnam 201, who were fishing guidance vessels, reached the near ○○○○; (b) the available number of passengers on board and the CN-235 Mag-gu, which are affiliated with the cN-235 Magyeong-gu, have observed the surrounding areas of ○○○○ around the sea from 09:30 to 10:06, the structure of all passengers on the sea may have been possible even if all 43 passengers were marked in the accident area from 09:26 to 101, where all 201 South

(D) In light of the method and route that allows passengers to get out of each ship’s office to a corridor, the fact that there was no particular element that could obstruct the movement of passengers from the ship’s office to the entrance via the corridor, the possibility of escape by each area, and the possibility of escape based on the actual circumstances, etc., if the order was issued on around 09:26, all passengers’ evacuation and escape could have been smoothly conducted.

(E) In the case of the victims discovered outside the body, the victims except for 60 male and female, who were present in the ship at the time of the accident, and 2) in light of the fact that the victims who participated in the escape at the time of the transfer of the body was rescued by the sea or by the fishing vessel and moved to another vessel, it seems that the escape at the time of the transfer of the body was lost by the escape at the time of the transfer of the body, and that there was no other reason.

(2) The judgment of this Court

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable. In the case of the third floor, the whole side of the hull is deck, and the fourth floor is about 40 meters long so that passengers are unable to evacuate, and the passengers who cannot leave the deck are able to wait in the near the deck. As so, it is not practically impossible that more than 40 passengers are in the safe structure of the outer deck as alleged by the Defendants 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by the Defendants 6, 7, 12, and 14 is rejected.

B) The causal relationship between the Defendants’ abandonment and the victims’ injury

(1) The judgment of the court below

In the case of mental injury, it can be sufficiently recognized that the victims suffered mental injury due to the abandonment of the Defendants, taking full account of the following: (a) the victims were frightened by the ○○○ Family, and the victims got a serious mental impulse or fall into confusion by itself; (b) △△ High School students also expected to have a hallwayd with their friendship with their relatives, and made a brupted structure by dividing the conversations between them; (c) if there were measures for the passengers’ rescue, all victims could escape if the victims were to escape; and (d) if the victims were to have received instructions and assistance from the ○○ Family crew including the Defendants, there was no mental pain and stress that they suffered; and (e) the victims were caused by the abandonment of the Defendants.

In the case of physical injury, according to the victim's legal statement and the statement of the medical certificate, it is confirmed that the physical injury listed in attached Table Ⅲ was caused by the victim's abandonment in the course of escape from the victim's own. Therefore, the causal relationship between the physical injury and the abandonment of the defendants is recognized.

(2) The judgment of this Court

Examining the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment in light of the records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there was no error by Defendant 11, 12, 13, and 14 allegedly. Accordingly, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

6) Claims relating to emergency evacuation or possibility (defendants 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, and 14)

A) Emergency evacuation part

Article 22(1) of the Criminal Act refers to an act of considerable reason to avoid the present danger to his or another person’s legal interest. Here, “an act of considerable reason” refers to an act of necessity: first, an act of necessity must be the sole means to protect the legal interest in danger; second, a method to inflict the largest minor damage on the victim; third, a profit preserved by an act of necessity should be more superior to the profit that is infringed; fourth, an act of necessity must be appropriate means in light of social ethics and the overall spirit of legal order (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13609, Jun. 13, 2013). In light of the above legal principles, an act of necessitying the act of escape to be suitable for the sake of social ethics and the overall spirit of legal order (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do13609, Jun. 13, 2013).

B) Expected part

Even if the above Defendants were in a critical state due to an accident at the time, it is difficult to recognize that the above Defendants had no possibility of expectation for lawful acts, such as the rescue of passengers, etc., by considering the following: (a) the crew experience, details of the completion of the crew training, and the details of training conducted by Nonindicted 11 by the captain of ○○ Ship, etc.

C) Sub-determination

Defendant 4, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 11, Defendant 13, and Defendant 14 do not accept these arguments.

D. Violation of the Marine Environment Management Act (Defendant 4, Defendant 5)

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 jointly with Defendant 1, as occupational negligence described in Article 8-1 (a) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below, were buried in the sea from the back part of the unit, and were buried in the sea, and discharged a total of 214 kiloliters used for fuel oil such as 139 kiloliters, transit 39 kiloliters, and lubricators, etc. through oil tanks.

2) Determination

As seen in the above 4.b. 2(c) above, insofar as there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the steering gear was normally operated at the time of the accident for the same reason, it is difficult to recognize Defendant 5 as being engaged in occupational negligence, which was done in the lux of large angle, and Defendant 4 as being negligent in neglecting the duty of supervision over the steering gear, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 as occupational negligence related to the steering gear, was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 is with merit.

5. Determination on the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing on Defendant 16 company (Nonindicted 4 company)

Defendant 1, who is an employee of Defendant 16 Company (Large: Non-Party 4 Company), committed an act to discharge Defendant 16 Company (non-Party 4 Company) into the sea around 214 kiloliters by negligence in connection with the business of Defendant 16 Company (non-Party 4 Company). However, considering the fact that Defendant 1, etc. did not have a large amount of oil outflow and there was a situation that it was difficult for Defendant 1, etc. to promptly cope with oil emissions at the time of the accident, the lower court does not seem to have been able to be able to destroy a fine of KRW 10 million sentenced to Defendant 16 Company (non-Party 4 Company).

6. Conclusion

The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 16 company (the non-indicted 4 company) is groundless, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In the prosecutor's appeal, the murder and attempted murder committed against Defendant 1; the violation of the Rescue and Aid Act on the part of the remaining Defendants except for Defendant 2 and Defendant 16 (Nonindicted Co. 4); the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendant 1; the part of the grounds for the legal protection of the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid Act on the part of the remaining Defendants other than Defendant 16 (Nonindicted Co. 4); the part of the injury excluded from the injury of abandonment; the murder committed against Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 2 among the appeals filed by Defendant 9; the part of the injury excluded from the injury of abandonment; the fact of the burial of a ship by occupational negligence and the violation of the Marine Environment Management Act on the part of the appeal filed by Defendant 4 and Defendant 5; and the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 2 on the ground of ex officio reversal as seen earlier.

Therefore, without examining the prosecutor's improper assertion of sentencing against the remaining defendants except for the defendant 16 company (the defendant 16 company (the non-indicted 4 company) and the judgment of the above defendants' unfair assertion of sentencing, the whole judgment of the court below against the above defendants, including the guilty part in both appeals or in relation to concurrent crimes or ordinary concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the non-guilty part, shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) or (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following decision shall be made after pleading.

[2014Gohap180]

1. Career, status and duties of the Defendants

A. Defendant 1

From 1983, the captain or the first mate was on board the coastal passenger ship, etc., and the second mate's license was held.

On November 1, 2006, after becoming a captain of Defendant 16 (board company: company No. 4) and around March 2013, 2013, Defendant 1 had worked as the captain from the time when ○○ Hoho was to work as the captain of the vessel from the time when ○○ was to work on the Jeju through Jeju Island, and had worked as the captain of Nonindicted 11 for the period of leave from August 201, 201, when he retired from the retirement age from around August 2013.

B. Defendant 2

From around 1992 to December 2012, 201, deep-sea fishing vessels and passenger vessels were on board with the first mate's license.

On December 15, 2012, Defendant 16 (Nonindicted Co. 4, 2012) entered Defendant 16 and worked on board as 1st mate from March 2013 to April 16, 2014, etc.

In the event that a captain is unable to perform his/her duties due to unavoidable reasons such as death, illness, injury, etc. on board ○○ 1st mate, he/she is engaged in navigational and cargo loading necessary for safely transporting passengers and cargo to the destination under the direction of the captain, and is engaged in gambling.

C. Defendant 3

From March 1990 to March 1992, Gangwon-do 1 box, Incheon 2 box, and Jinhae as Navy from the operations headquarters. From August 2012 to December 2013, the South Maritime High Speeda Pari7 was a second class mate, and the third class mate's license was granted.

On January 1, 2014, Defendant 16 (Nonindicted Co. 4, 201) entered Defendant 16 and worked as a chief mate from January 2, 2014 to the second chief mate from January 2, 2014, etc., and is engaged in the operation management, various navigational equipment, and communication equipment inspection, etc. under the captain’s direction.

D. Defendant 4

2012. 11. 11.부터 2013. 9. 1.까지 3등항해사로 ◆◆◆ 국제여객선(◆◆◆, 총톤수 17,022톤)에 승선하여 일하였고 3급 항해사 자격면허를 가지고 있다.

On December 15, 2013, Defendant 16 (Nonindicted Co. 4, 2012) entered Defendant 16 (Nonindicted Co. 4, 201) and worked on board ○○○○ from December 16, 2013 to March 16, 2013, etc., have a total of two years and one month work experience.

The three navigation officers on board the ○○○-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho,

E. Defendant 5

Since November 1, 2012, when working as the deck of deep-sea fishing vessels, there was a total of 13 years and ten months of working experience, such as joining Defendant 16 Company (Nonindicted Co. 4 Company) on November 1, 2013 and working as the steering course of ○○.

It is engaged in the business of operating a steering boat according to the instruction of a mate on board the steering boat of ○○ Head.

F. Defendant 6

From March 2011, he/she was on board a passenger ship from around 3, 201 to 3rd mate, etc., and was on April 15, 2014 immediately before the instant accident, he/she was on board Defendant 16 company (the company outside the prosecution: the company outside the prosecution) and was on board as the 00th mate, etc., and had a 3rd mate's license.

Defendant 3, who is a second-class mate on board ○○-board, has been granted a duty to assist Defendant 3’s operation and management, various navigational equipment, communication equipment inspection, etc., and is engaged in assisting Defendant 3’s operation.

G. Defendant 7

From 1979 to 1982, the ship was on deck as a deck, and the ship was on the 3rd mate around 2012 and the 4th mate's license was held.

On February 1, 2013, there is a total of five years and nine months work experience, such as joining Defendant 16 Company (Nonindicted Co. 4 Company) and boarding a boat with the steering lines of ○○○○.

H. Defendant 8

2002년경부터 2011년경까지 ▷▷▷관광 여객선 ‘◁◁호’에 승선하여 조기수·갑판원 등으로 일하다가, 2013. 7. 15. 피고인 16 회사(대판:공소외 4 회사)에 입사한 뒤 ○○호의 조타수로 일하는 등 총 9년 11개월의 승무경력이 있다.

I. Defendant 9

Since November 14, 201, 201, 14 years and 24 months have been on board, such as serving as an engineer or head of an agency in various kinds of ships, and after entering Defendant 16 on September 3, 2001, he/she was working as the head of an agency in the head of ○○, etc. from November 14, 201 to 200, and he/she has a first-class engineer license.

The head of the board set forth in ○○○ is engaged in the duties of checking the main engine before departure, loading oil, etc., and exercising overall control over the operation and repair of various facilities such as the main engine and electric installations when sailing.

(j) Defendant 10

From around 1985 to be an engineer officer and the head of agency on the upper line. On December 15, 2013, Defendant 16 (Nonindicted Company 4) entered Defendant 16 and worked as a first engineer officer on December 15, 2013, etc., he/she had a total of 21 years and 3 months work, and has a first engineer license.

On board a first class engineer of ○○ head, and is engaged in affairs such as engine operation and maintenance of the main engine, engine accessories management, etc. under the direction of the captain.

(k) Defendant 11

From November 20 to November 2013, 2013, 1 year and 4 months' work experience such as working on board as a 3rd class engineer officer, etc., and 3rd class engineer's license is granted.

On board a third class engineer of ○○○, he is engaged in the work of assisting the head of the agency, and inspecting and operating the operational status of the engine, such as engine and power generator, under the direction of the captain.

(l) Defendant 12

From 1983 to 1983, there was a total of 23 years and 1 months of work experience, such as joining Defendant 16 company (Nonindicted Company 4) on April 15, 2014 immediately before the instant accident, and working as the early place of ○○, and a class 6 engineer license.

The early site of ○○ is engaged in the inspection and maintenance of the engine equipment, such as engines and power generators, under the direction of the head of the agency or engine.

(m) Defendant 13

From 1981 to begin boarding a deep-sea fishing vessel, it has worked as an early waterway on various vessels, such as a cream line, cement transport line, fishing vessel, etc., and on December 1, 2012, Defendant 16 (a company outside the public prosecution: company outside the public prosecution) entered the company on December 1, 201, and worked as an early passenger on board the company’s chump for eight years and eight months in total.

The early boarding of ○○○ is engaged in the inspection and maintenance of engine equipment such as engines and power generators under the direction of the captain under the direction of the captain.

(n) Defendant 14

From 1980 to start boarding an oil tanker, the oil tanker worked as an early number of various vessels, such as cement transport lines and freight rail lines, and on January 1, 2014, Defendant 16 (board: companies outside the public prosecution: companies outside the public prosecution) entered the company on January 1, 201, and worked as an early number of 00 and seven months in total.

(o) Defendant 15

Since November 15, 2013, there was a total of 10 years and 4 months of working on board, including: (a) having been employed by Defendant 16 on November 15, 2016 (the company outside the public prosecution: the company outside the public prosecution) after having been employed by Defendant 16 on the same day; and (b) having been on board the ship at the early number of 00.

2. The volume of the cargo loaded and loaded in bulk;

At around 18:30 on April 15, 2014, ○○ was scheduled to depart from Jeju-do. However, the entry into force of the corrective caution report due to the opening of the 17:35 on the same day, and the departure was delayed at around 21:00 on the same day. At around 20:35 on the same day, the corrective caution report was cancelled, and the departure was made at around 21:00 on the same day. around 21:00 on April 15, 2014, ○○ loaded a large number of cargo, such as loading 45 containers on decks from the coastline in Incheon, with a total of 476 students, etc. who are going to depart from the port.

According to the data of restitution (26 weeks approved by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries pursuant to Article 28 Section 25 of the Ship Safety Act), Defendant 16 company (Nonindicted Co. 4 company) is to load 6,825 tons of goods (3,794 note 28), and to load 1,077 tons of goods that can be loaded while maintaining restitution, Defendant 16 company (Nonindicted Co. 4 company) is to load 1,07 tons of goods (3,794 note 28), and to load 1,07 tons of goods that can be loaded while maintaining restitution. Thus, in order for Defendant 16 company to load 6.264 meters of goods at maximum, 1,077 tons of ordinary water, 694.8 tons of fuel oil, 560.9 tons of oil, and 290.9 tons of clean water.

As at the time of the first mate, Defendant 2, who is in charge of the loading of the cargo, shall properly instruct and inspect the loading of the cargo through the on-site supervisor of Nonindicted Company 14 or directly to the on-site supervisor of Nonindicted Company 14, who entered into a contract for carrying out the loading of the cargo, and the gambling of the cargo with Defendant 16 Company (SPS 4 Company) and the on-site supervisor, so that the loading of the cargo does not exceed the above maximum value. Defendant 1, who is the captain, shall check whether the loading of the cargo does not exceed the maximum value, and shall take necessary measures if deemed that there is an obstacle to the safe sailing of

Nevertheless, on April 15, 2014, Defendant 2: (a) had to load cargo to the volume reduced by 761.2 tons of flat numbers; (b) 1,375.8 tons of fuel oil; (c) Defendant 2 had to load cargo to the volume reduced by 259 tons of blue water; and (d) Defendant 1 had not inspected the cargo so that the load exceeds the maximum value of cargo.

As a result, ○○ had, before departure, loaded 45 tons of container and 142 tons of cargo on the decks of Chyc (2.5 floor) and 30 tons of cargo on Purc (2.5 floor), on Purc (2 floor), on Curc (2 floor), on Purc (20 vehicles, 70 vehicles, 28 freight cars, 1 of heavy equipment, 1 of Durc (1 floor), on Purc (1 floor), 24 vehicles, 29 freight cars, 3 of heavy equipment, 7 of container, 7 of general cargo, etc., on Eurc (ground), and loaded 53 and 142 tons of cargo on Purc (ground), and loaded 1,077 tons of cargo loaded on Purc (1,065 tons of cargo) as stated on Purc data.

On the other hand, cargo shall be loaded in such a way as to be attached to the operation management rules pursuant to Article 39 Section 29 of the Ship Safety Act, and the cargo shall be loaded in such a way as to prevent the cargo from being shaken at the time of navigation. According to the vehicle loading scheme and cargo parking scheme attached to the operation management rules of 00, ① the method of loading a container shall be determined by the vehicle loading scheme and cargo parking scheme attached to the operation management rules: ① the method of loading a container shall be determined at the time of vertical loading, by sticking the home of a container on the bottom installed on the floor; the front and rear side of the container shall be fixed to the bottom using tamp after X was installed; the first and rear side of the container shall be fixed by the same method as in the case of the first two parts; the two parts shall be connected to the two upper parts of the container at the time of loading; the two upper parts of the container at the time of loading shall be connected to the first and rear end of the vehicle; and the method of loading the vehicle shall be connected to the first and rear 4th of the cargo.

Therefore, Defendant 2, who is in charge of the business of mooring cargo, shall give an appropriate instruction to the on-site supervisor of Nonindicted Company 14 or to the on-site manager in order for the on-site manager to stop the cargo in accordance with the provision that the loaded cargo would not drive in the sea, and shall report the cargo to Defendant 1 on the loading and landing condition and take necessary measures. Defendant 1 should take necessary measures if deemed that it is likely to hinder safe navigation by checking whether the cargo is in accordance with the provision, and if it is possible to interfere with the safe navigation, he shall prepare a "report on safety inspection before departure from the port" before departure from the port, and submit it to the operator for confirmation.

Nevertheless, Defendant 2 knew that Defendant 16 Company 16 (SP: Nonindicted Company 4), the Deputy Commissioner of the Logistics Team, Kim Jong-soo et al. instructed on the part of the field to the effect that “the cargo is loaded on a large quantity, and the container is cut off only by combining two parts of the container,” but impliedly, Defendant 2 instructed that “the container is cut off by combining two parts of the container.”

Accordingly, on April 15, 2014, on the ground that at the time of the mooring of cargo, the on-site seal stuffed the container by combining it with a general set of projecters without fixing the container on the floor, even in the Dlock (1st floor) cargo partitions and Elock ( underground) cargo partitions that did not have any locking device that can fix the container on the floor when the container is being installed, and then stuffed the container in violation of the provisions, such as pressing the container by loading a container that does not meet the size of the locking device installed on the on-board deck with two parts and binding the upper part of the container into a general set of projecters.

After that, Defendant 1 did not check the above-mentioned cargo.

As above, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not take necessary measures for the safe operation of ○○, such as loading of cargo exceeding the maximum value of the cargo that can be loaded based on the data of restitution of ○○○○○○, and not putting the cargo in line with the regulations, and Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 got out of the port with a significant aggravation of restitution.

3. The whole clothes of ○○-house; and

From 07:30 on the day of the accident, Defendant 4 was on duty navigator, Defendant 5 was on duty, and around 08:48, Defendant 1 was on duty, and around 140 degrees back to the north coast of 1.8 nautical miles in Jindo-gun, Jindo-do, Jindo-do, Jindo-do, with the engine’s maximum output, and attempted to 145 degrees back to the 145 degrees back to the port, and the engine’s hull was rapidly affected by the external slope.

In the process, as described in Paragraph 2, unrefilled cargo was seriously cut to the port side, and 00 ○○ became worse due to its influence, so the restoration power has been lost to the port side, which eventually led to approximately 30 degrees on the port side. On April 16, 2014, at the sea of 08:49:16:13, the latitude 34.16247, the longitude 125.96492, around 128:52:01, the 08:52:01, the 34.160717, the 125.9608, around 201, the vessel was moved to the right side of the vessel, with its engine suspension and the 125.96492, around 201, the 08:52:01, at the right side of the vessel.

A person shall be appointed.

Meanwhile, around 09:34:02: around 09: 02: 52.9; 09: 54.1; 09:4; 54.9; 09:38:4; 54.9; 09:4; 09: 54.9; 09: 09: 50:52; 55.3; 09:4: 55.4; 09: 09: 27: 07.4: 08; 56.4: 07: 38; 07.4: 09: 4: 07: 05: 57: 03: 65: 4: 65: 65: 4: 604; 57.4: 38; 61.2; 09: 638; 409: 45; 65: 69: 65: 294: 65; 29464:44.

4. Request for rescue and order to abandon;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8, who were in their respective rooms to stop on the sea at each point of 125.9608, even around 08:52, at the port of the ○○ho Lake, were gathered in the steering house to grasp the situation of the accident. Defendant 2: (a) he was aware that the ○ho Lake is unrepared; (b) he was fluoring the distribution of vessels while he knows that the ○ho Lake is unrepared; and (c) around 08:55, he was aware that the distribution would soon be sunken; and (d) requested that “I will go beyond the present line on the ....................”

At the time, the number of passengers, including the Defendants, on board 33 and 443 passengers, including 33 crew members, were on board the ship, and among them, the female, the elderly, and the students of △△△△ who want to travel at school, including a large number of students. Therefore, the Defendants, the crew of ○○, who are the crew of ○○, should be able to lead the passengers well so as not to do so, and should be able to inform the passengers of the occurrence of the accident through the broadcast on the ship, and to see the situation related to the structure, such as whether certain emergency measures are taken by the crew at proper intervals, so that the passengers are not uneasable.

In addition, Defendant 1, a captain, ordered the passengers to get out of the ship immediately and ordered the passengers to get out of the ship, and the other crew members to take over the ship promptly and in compliance with the direction and direction of the crew. On the other hand, the passengers and crew members are allowed to get out of the ship without properly guiding the passengers to get out of the ship, and there are the remaining patients and the old and the old, who could not get out of the ship even if they want to get out of the ship. Thus, it is necessary to search the passenger room and the ship room finally by Defendant 2, a captain, and Defendant 9, a chief mate.

Defendant 1 and other Defendants, as crew members of ○○○, should give priority to securing the safety of human lives in accordance with the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in accordance with the operation management rules, Chapter 10, Chapter 14, and the attached 2 emergency department 34), as well as to deal with all accidents. Defendant 1, who are the captain, performed an instruction on the location of emergency exit and the method of evacuation, and faithfully performed the duties assigned to each person, such as guiding passengers evacuation in the area in charge, and take measures to ensure the safety of passengers.

In particular, Defendant 1, as the captain of the vessel, has a duty to take appropriate rescue measures, such as the order of evacuation via broadcasting equipment, electrical and telephone, etc., the order of rescue from the ship, the information on the situation, the guide to the crew, the guide to the passengers, and the direction to the captain of the vessel, and the direction to the captain of the vessel, and to instruct and supervise the crew to faithfully perform the rescue duties assigned to each other.

Defendant 2, as the first mate, has the duty to assist the captain, to direct the scene, to guide the passengers to get out of the ship, etc., and to take measures to ensure the safety of the passengers, such as inducing the passengers to get out of the ship. Defendant 3, as the second mate, has the duty to assist the captain, to take measures to ensure the safety of passengers, such as guiding the passengers to get out of the ship, and guiding the passengers to get out of the ship. Defendant 4, as the third mate, has the duty to assist the passengers to command the passengers to the ship, and to preserve the records related to navigation, such as the log book, etc., and to ensure the safety of passengers, such as making a distress report and a request for rescue using the communication device. Defendant 6 also has the duty to take measures to rescue passengers.

Defendant 5, Defendant 7, and Defendant 8, respectively, have a duty to take measures to ensure the safety of passengers by using life rafts, etc., on the part of the captain and the mate, by making the passengers go to the shot, life raft, emergency bridge, and life jackets under the direction of the captain and the mate.

Defendant 9, as the head of ○○, is obligated to inform passengers of the location and means of evacuation of an emergency escape exit when an emergency, such as the sinking of a ship, and to instruct the engine crew members, and to have the engine crew members take necessary measures for the safety of passengers, such as mooring of a unit, a life raft, a life raft to the front side, and an emergency bridge to the front side.

Defendant 10, as a first-class engineer, was obligated to take charge of the main engine and the life raft, to guide passengers, etc. in a safe way. Defendant 11, as a third-class engineer, has the duty to assist passengers in the head of the engine to command the cabin and to take measures to ensure the safety of passengers. Defendant 12, as a captain, has the duty to take measures to help passengers to get out of the cabin, such as saving the ice and life raft, guiding passengers, etc.

Defendant 13, Defendant 14, and Defendant 15, as early as possible, have a duty to take measures to ensure the safety of passengers by using life rafts, etc., such as thrown out the racker, life raft, emergency rescue bridge, or life jackets under the direction of the head of the agency, leading passengers to such act.

○○호가 이 사건 사고 직후 이미 좌현으로 약 30도 정도 기울고, 선수 갑판에 있던 컨테이너 등의 화물들이 좌현으로 쏠려 무너져 내리는 상황에서 피고인들은 평소 복원력이 나빴던 ○○호가 곧 전복되어 침몰될 수 있다고 생각하였으므로, 위와 같은 의무에 따라 선장인 피고인 1은 즉시 다른 피고인들을 비롯한 전 선원들에게 비상부서배치 명령을 발하여 각 선원들이 비상부서배치표에 따라 담당하는 역할을 수행하도록 지휘하고, 피고인 2를 비롯한 나머지 피고인들은 각자 담당하는 역할을 수행하면서 승객 등을 선실에서 나오게 한 뒤 갑판으로 유도하는 등 퇴선준비를 하여야 했다.

However, Defendant 1, without preparing to get off the ship, instructed Defendant 3 to broadcast “to wait on the ship by suffering life jackets” to Defendant 3 without waiting to get off the ship, and Defendant 3 broadcasted “in the air system,” which was attached to Defendant 3’s entire system distribution, and “in the air,” but did not take place on the ship due to the emergency pressing.

Accordingly, Defendant 3 instructed the chief executive officer of ○○○ to communicate with Nonindicted 6 without informing him of the sinking situation of ○○○○, and Nonindicted 6 instructed Nonindicted 7, the manager of ○○○○ in the third floor information room, to broadcast the “inboard air” guidance to passengers, and Nonindicted 7 broadcast “inboard waiting at the ship” on several occasions, and thereafter, the passenger continued to wait on the ship without knowing of the sinking situation of the ship.

Meanwhile, at the time of the instant accident, Defendant 9, who was in the steering house, was aware of the rapid ○○’s rapid flabing of the player deck container toward the port side, and, in order to suspend the engine, Defendant 1’s engine was completely suspended with Defendant 1’s instructions while the engine was in a state of incomplete stop but the engine was not completely suspended due to incomplete engine failure, and ordered Defendant 11, Defendant 14, and Defendant 13, who was an engine crew member in the engine room, to leave the engine room in the engine room by direct telephone.

Then, Defendant 9 instructed Defendant 1 that “I am in the engine room”, and immediately left the steering house to the third floor where I am in the engine room. At around 09:06, Defendant 11, Defendant 14, Defendant 13, and Defendant 10, Defendant 12, and Defendant 15, who were the engine crew from the engine room, waiting for a clerical error.

At around 09:13, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, etc., who were in the steering house, sent the communication that “I want to escape if you want to rescue” to rescue the passengers of Jindo VTS. In addition, it was known that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to rescue the nearby fishing vessels through the communication with Jindo VTS. In addition, at around 09:21 and around 09:23, the Jindo VTS and Mag Mag Mag, “I would know that I would know that I would like to rescue the passengers, etc., even though I would know that I would like to know that I would escape immediately after the escape.”

Furthermore, the above Defendants, at around 09:23, who were in the steering house, did not take any relief measures such as evacuation of passengers, and did not take any measures such as evacuation of passengers, again, around 09:25 Jindo VTS that “I would see to the maximum extent possible, the passengers of the life gate to wear the life gate and to fill the clothes in two gates, even if the broadcasting became known,” and that I would like to request the passengers to wear the clothes to the maximum extent possible. In addition, at around 09:24, the above Defendants, who were in the steering house, did not take any measures of rescue from the captain of Jindo Maga-ho to the maximum extent possible.”

At that time, the above Defendants, who had been a pilothouse, did not issue additional instructions, such as issuing an evacuation order to passengers, even though they received additional demands for evacuation, etc. from Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 7 on board the third floor ○-hoer 20 and Nonindicted 7, who had been on board the third floor on the part of the air through an electricity and the steering house, which was kept in the air with Defendant 3.

Accordingly, Nonindicted 20 and Nonindicted 7 who did not know the sinking situation of a ship and the right response method have continued to air in a ship without having passengers know the specific situation.

At around 09:26, the above Defendants, who were in the steering house, did not take any measures even though they were able to immediately escape from the Jindo VTS around 09:27, that “the security guards would have arrived within 10 minutes,” and that “the passengers would have been able to arrive after 1 minute” from the Jindo VTS around 09:27, so they did not take any measures so that they could immediately escape from the ship, such as gathering passengers at the shelter site. At around 09:34, the flooded 00 head of ○○ became more than 37,00,000 at the time of the accident, which had already lost the restoration power of the water surface. Accordingly, 00 head of ○○ immediately returned to the water surface.

Nevertheless, the above Defendants, at around 09:37, did not respond to the communication from the Jindo VTS, and did not take any measures to rescue passengers, such as evacuation order and the order to abandon the ship, and guiding passengers to abandon the ship. In addition, at around 09:39, the passengers and other crew members, including Defendant 9, did not confirm the situation of the passengers, and did not discuss the method of the passengers’ rescue. At around 123, the passengers and other crew members were waiting to get off the ship. At around 19:46, the above Defendants, who were in the steering house, were waiting to get off the ship. At around 09:39, the passengers and other crew members were waiting to get off the ship. At around 123, at around 129:46, the captain and the crew of the ship were to get off the ship.

Meanwhile, as seen above, Defendant 9 had Defendant 10, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 14, and Defendant 15 wait at the seat of the third floor engine room of the ○○○-3rd floor, and the Defendants, including Defendant 9, were aware of the situation in which the passengers, etc. are waiting in the ship because they did not carry the rescue equipment such as the life raft and the shoot, etc. of the steering boat.

Defendant 9 used the stairs from the fifth floor where he had the engine room to the third floor where he had the engine room. In light of the fact that Defendant 11, 14, and 13, who had been in the engine room at the lower engine room at the lower engine room at the ○○○○ level, were aware that the Defendants were able to move to the ship, the Defendants of the engine room acknowledged that they were able to move to the nearer engine room. As such, in the event that they were in a duty to move to the nearer engine and evacuate passengers or to take measures to ensure the safety of passengers by carrying out their duties in the above situation, they were able to take measures to get passengers to escape from the ship without fulfilling the duty, and they were able to take measures to get the passengers to get out of the ship, Nonindicted 1 was cooked from the front corridor, and Nonindicted 2 was able to get out of the air without being able to get the passengers to get out of the ship.

Nevertheless, the Defendants, including the Defendant 9, did not take any measures for the rescue of passengers, such as covering life rafts and shoots, and evacuation of the aforementioned Nonindicted Party 1, 2, and passengers on decks where rescue is easy, and there was only a clerical error in the life-saving team for about 30 minutes by gathering on the corridor of the third floor without checking the situation of passengers or discussing the method of the rescue of passengers.

After around 09:38, Defendant 9: (a) attempted to have passengers and other crew members waiting to ○○○; (b) attempted to get the crew members, including Defendant 10, etc. to get out of the port entrance connected to the third floor, and (c) did not reveal that he was the crew members, and (d) did not take any rescue measures against the passengers, following the instruction of Defendant 10, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 14, Defendant 15, and Defendant 15 were to get out of the port entrance connected to the third floor. (c) At around 09:39, Defendant 9 and Defendant 9 were to get out of the port entrance. (d) did not take any rescue measures against the passengers.

5. Response to passengers, and damage situations after an accident occurs;

From 08:52 to 09:50, 000, ○○ had been running on several occasions from around 08:52 to around 09:50, i.e., giving the passengers a guidance to wait in the ship by broadcasting on board, and “in-house waiting in the ship” continued only to be broadcast, and there was no guidance on the situation of the accident and how to evacuate passengers.

이에 따라 08:52경 ○○호에 타고 있던 피해자 주38) 최○○ (남, 16세)가 119에 최초로 사고 신고를 하고, 피해자 김○○(여, 16세)이 09:41경 “아 진짜 보고싶어ㅜㅜ엄마ㅜㅜ, 야 진짜무서워ㅜㅜㅜ, 창문바로앞에컨테이너, 떠내려가고잇어, 존나방송도안해줘, 걍가만히만잇으래”, 09:42경 “아빠가 속보 떳다고, 보라고해서, 아니숙소안에, 다잇어, 배터리단다고, 지피에스 켜놓고, 배터리다니까, 기다리래ㅜㅜ“라는 카카오톡 문자메시지를 보내고, 피해자 박○○(여, 16세)이 10:17경 “지금 더 기울어”라는 카카오톡 문자메시지를 보내는 등 승객들은 선내에 대기하라는 안내방송에 따라 선내에서 구조조치를 기다리면서 통화를 하거나 문자메시지를 주고받았다.

On the other hand, when the victim U20 (Nam, 58 years old) moved the sea water to an information room through the front door window while waiting in the front side of the third floor, and then moved to the 4th floor through the rotosp, again, to the 4th floor deck through the rotosp, and was rescued by the shore despite the broadcast to wait in the ship, it was possible for the passengers to live in the situation where the Defendants were able to properly perform rescue measures, such as ordering the passengers to get out of the ship, and projecting the rotosp to the rotosp.

However, as seen above, when the Defendants were to escape from the ○○○○○○, etc., without any rescue measures such as evacuation order and inducing passengers to escape therefrom, 303 and Nonindicted 3 (including nine missing persons at the time the judgment was rendered on April 28, 2015), including 20 years old, died of the sea (including 9 years old), and 152 of the victim, including ○○○, and 40 years old, were rescued by the 152 of the victim’s daily list No. 2, including the victim’s ○○, etc., but the victim’s ○○, who was on board the ○○○○○’s own account or in the course of escape.

6. Application of the law by the defendant

(a) Burial of a ship by occupational negligence, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, around April 16, 2014, around 08:48, 476, 476 passengers, etc., were sunken by combining the occupational categories, such as reducing the horizontal number of cargo, loading a maximum load exceeding the load capacity, and the fixed amount of stay, of the above Defendants, as described in paragraph 2, with the occupational categories of 1.8 nautical miles located north-do, Jindo-gun, Jindo-do, Jindo-do, and other causes not known to them.

As a result, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 jointly buried a ship in which people are employed by occupational negligence.

B. Defendant 1’s murder and attempted murder

피고인 1은 제4항 기재와 같이 평소 복원력이 나빴던 ○○호가 사고 발생 직후 이미 좌현으로 약 30도 정도 기운 뒤 계속하여 기울고 있는 점 등에 비추어 ○○호가 곧 침몰할 수 있다는 사실과 피해자인 승객 등이 안내방송을 믿고 대피하지 않은 채 선내에 대기하고 있는 사실 그리고 진도 VTS 등과의 교신을 통하여 승객 등을 퇴선시킬 경우 구조가 가능하다는 사실을 충분히 인식하였다.

On April 16, 2014, at around 08:55, Defendant 1, a person with the authority to decide to issue an order to abandon the passengers, etc., was required to take measures to rescue the victims, such as making the rescue equipment, such as the life raft and shoot, and making the victims escape from the deck, etc., in order to prepare for the victims’ rescue from around 09:37 after Defendant 2 requested the rescue from the steering house at Jeju ○○○○○○, Defendant 1, a person with the authority to decide to issue an order to abandon the passengers, etc. In particular, around 09:13, the victims escape from the emergency rescue device at around 09:24, when the victims escape from the steering house at around 09:24. As such, Defendant 1 was safe to the victims without delay. Defendant 1 was able to take emergency rescue measures, such as the steering boat, etc.

However, even though Defendant 1 was aware that the victims might not get out of the ○○○ho Lake, if he were waiting in the ship, he did not take all the measures to get out of the ship, but did not order the crew to take follow-up measures, such as evacuation of the victims waiting in the ship, and did not order the above measures to continue waiting in the ship. At around 09:26, Defendant 1 got the signal that the crew would arrive within 10 minutes of the sea-do VTS in the event that the victims arrived at around 10 minutes of the ship, and had the victims continue waiting in the ship by failing to take any measures to ensure that the victims would continue waiting in the ship.

Since then, Defendant 1 discovered that only one of 123 others arrive in the vicinity of ○○ho Lake, Defendant 1 was able to rescue first escape when Defendant 1 escaped in the absence of the order to get out of ○○ho Lake, due to the expansion and rebuilding of ○○ho Lake, the restoration power is weak due to the weight-centered disorder, and the cost of the freight on the port side is overworked due to an excessive fault, etc., and on the other hand, the passengers, etc. can immediately die if they were to leave ○ho Lake, while the situation where Defendant 1 escaped first.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, on the premise that “If the passengers, etc. were to get out of the ship without having ordered the passengers, etc. to evacuate or to get out of the ship, the passengers, etc. waiting to get out of the ship may have been detained in the ship when the passengers, etc. were to get out of the ship but could not have been able to get out of the ship, he could not have any other person to get out of the ship.”

At around 09:37, Defendant 1: (a) did not take any rescue measures against passengers, etc. and did not notify the captain and crew of the vessel of the fact that the passengers, etc. were in the atmosphere and the information on the vessel necessary for the rescue of passengers, etc., on the following grounds: (b) Defendant 1, et al.: (c) did not take any rescue measures against the passengers, etc. on the ground that the crew, etc., including Defendant 9, were to get off the vessel by using the rescue rescue force at around 09:39; and (d) did not inform the captain and crew of the fact that the passengers, etc. were in the atmosphere, as well as the information on the vessel necessary for the rescue of passengers.

As a result, Defendant 1: (a) 303 victims indicated in Appendix 1, such as the victim’s Ma○○ (Nam, 16 years old); (b) was killed by leaving the sea around that time; (c) 152 victims indicated in Appendix Ⅱ, such as the victim’s strong ○○ (Nam, 40 years old); and (d) was allowed to die by 152 victims, such as the victim’s strong ○○ (Nam, 40 years old); but (c) did not die by the wind rescue of the victim.

C. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes by Defendants 1 and 2

At around 08:48 on April 16, 2014, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, together, did not take rescue measures, such as evacuation and escape of passengers and other crew members, even though Nonindicted 3, the passengers, were on the sea, or waiting to the ○○-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, the passengers, were on the sea, on the 1.8 nautical miles from the North-do 1.8 nautical miles-do, Jindo-do, Jindo-do.

As can be seen, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not take measures necessary to promptly rescue the victim in distress while the victim Nonindicted 3 (Nam, 57 years old), who was on board ○○○○ in common, was on the sea, but did not take measures necessary to promptly rescue the victim, and caused the said victim to die of her death.

In addition, even though 45 persons on board ○○○○○ (Nam, 16 years old), who was on board ○○○○○, were placed in the sea, or buried hulls were detained, Defendant 2 escaped without taking necessary measures to promptly rescue the distressed victim. Defendant 2 caused 152 victims as stated in Appendix II, such as the victim regular ○○○ (Nam, 16 years old), etc., to die of 303 victims as specified in Appendix I, such as the victim regular ○○ (Seoul, 40 years old), etc., and caused injury to the victim, such as shoulder, arms, knee, knee, and feas, which require two weeks of medical treatment.

D. Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 14, and Defendant 15’s abandonment or abandonment injury

Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 14, and Defendant 15 are legally and contractually obligated to rescue passengers, etc., as stated in paragraph (4), from among the crew members of Jindo-gun, Jindo-do 1.8 nautical miles on April 16, 2014, who were sunken at the tidal milesdo 1.8 nautical miles from the North Korean coastdo.

Nevertheless, the above Defendants did not take any measures necessary for the rescue of passengers waiting for the rescue according to air broadcasting on the ○hoho Lake, waiting for the rescue of crew, and other crew members.

As a result, the above Defendants jointly deserted the victims listed in the attached Table 1 and 3, thereby causing death to 303 victims listed in the attached Table 1, such as the victim's emotional ○○○ (Nam, 16 years of age), etc. around that time, and resulting in injury to 142 victims listed in the attached Table 3, such as a shoulder, arms, knee, knee, knee, and feasia, which require medical treatment for about two weeks, thereby causing injury to 142 victims listed in the attached Table 3.

E. Defendant 1’s violation of the Seafarers’ Act

When a ship is in critical danger, a captain shall take all the measures necessary to rescue human lives, the ship and cargoes.

Nevertheless, at around 08:48 on April 16, 2014, Defendant 1 failed to take all necessary measures for the rescue of human life, etc., such as promptly evacuation of passengers, etc., as described in paragraph (4), when 00 ○○○ was unable to restore and rapidly exercise the right to care at the 1.8 nautical miles north bank of Jindo-do, Jindo-do.

F. Violation of the Rescue and Aid Act by Defendants 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15

The captain and crew members of a ship who have caused an accident shall take necessary measures to promptly rescue persons in distress even if there is no request.

Around 08:48 on April 16, 2014, 00, ○○○○ ( South, 16 years old), Nonindicted 3 ( South, and 57 years old), etc., who is passengers, was in distress at the 1.8 nautical miles (hereinafter referred to as “the captain and crew of a ship that provided the cause of an accident”) and was in distress. Defendant 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 were the captain and crew of a ship that provided the cause of an accident as described in paragraph (2), but did not take measures necessary for the rescue of human life, such as prompt evacuation of passengers in distress as described in paragraph (4).

Accordingly, the above Defendants did not take measures necessary to promptly rescue persons in distress.

[2014Gohap384]

7. Violation of the Marine Environment Management Act by Defendant 1

Defendant 1 discharged a total of 214 kiloliters used for fuel oil, such as 139 kiloliters, light oil 39 kiloliters, and lubricators, through oil tanks, etc. in oil tanks, buried in the sea as occupational negligence ○○○ was flooded from the back of the port, as described in paragraph 2, and discharged oil around the sea.

The summary of the evidence at the bottom of the judgment of the court below [the part concerning the crime of burying a ship by occupational negligence] is modified [the crime of burying a ship by occupational negligence, the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes], and the summary of the evidence in this part is added to the summary of the evidence, "1. Defendant 1's original trial statement, 1. Hen's original trial statement, 1. Hen's original testimony and opinion as to the victims listed in attached Table II, 1. Investigation report (the confirmation of the contents of treatment by 92 survivors of the sinking accident ○○, 1. On-site identification report, inspection report, each autopsy report, each autopsy report, each body autopsy report, each hospital's body autopsy report, and direction."

Article 37 of the judgment of the court below is amended to the second [the crime of murder, abandonment, abandonment, abandonment, abandonment, abandonment, abandonment, abandonment, violation of the Seafarers' Act]. The part of the judgment of the court below is to add the "one day's own legal statement of the defendant 3 and the defendant 9, the part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, the first day's legal statement of the defendant 1, and the first day's non-indicted 5 and the second day's own legal statement of the court of first instance, the second day's witness of the court of first instance, and the second day's non-indicted

○ Decision 39 of the lower court (2014Gohap384) added “Defendant 1’s legal statement at the trial court” to the summary of the evidence.

A. Defendant 1: Articles 189(2), 187, and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 250(1) (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 254 and 250(1) (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 5-12 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Articles 268 and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act (a person’s escape after the victim’s traffic accident against Nonindicted 3), 161 (a person’s escape after the victim’s death or death), the former part of Article 161 and Article 11 of the Seafarers Act; Articles 43 subparag. 2 and 18(1) proviso of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a person’s failure to rescue); Articles 27 subparag. 2 and 22(1)(b) of the Marine Environment Management Act;

B. Defendant 2: Articles 189(2), 187, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of burial of a ship by occupational negligence), Article 5-12 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of escape after the escape of a ship from a traffic accident), Article 5-12 subparag. 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the point of escape after the escape of a ship from a traffic accident)

C. Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 14, and Defendant 15: Articles 275(1), 271(1), and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 275(1), 271(1), and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 275(1), 271(1), and 30 (a) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act; Articles 43 subparag. 2 and 18(1) proviso of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a person who did not take salvage measures)

1. Commercial competition;

A. Defendant 1

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act [Punishment prescribed for the crime of murder and attempted murder between crimes, and punishment for the crime of murder between crimes and attempted murder, and punishment for the crime of murder committed on the ○○○○○○○ (born on June 27, 2008) with the largest penalty, and punishment for the crime of violating the Seafarers Act and the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act, and punishment for the crime of more severe

B. Defendant 2

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment stipulated on the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc., and the punishment on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc., of Specific Crimes shall be imposed on the victim's right ○○○, which has the largest penalty)

C. Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 14, and Defendant 15

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed for the crime of abandonment, the crime of abandonment, the crime of abandonment, and the crime of violation of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act, and the punishment for the crime of abandonment on the victim's right ○○○ (born on June 27, 2008) with the largest criminal penalty)

1. Selection of punishment;

In regard to the crime of murder, punishment for imprisonment for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, imprisonment for the crime of death by occupational negligence, imprisonment for the crime of burying a ship by occupational negligence, violation of the Rescue and Aid at Sea Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment shall not be imposed on another punishment, since a person selects a punishment for life with the largest punishment for the crime of murder);

(b) Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 38 (2), and 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment of two crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, and Defendant 12: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the following favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

On the other hand, ○○ was a dangerous passenger ship that may be sunken at any time due to the weakening of restitution due to the expansion and rebuilding, the overfluence, and the poor and poor gambling. The executives of Defendant 16 Company (hereinafter Nonparty 4 Company) did not resolve the structural problems pointed out by the captain and crew several times in order to reduce expenses, the captain and crew did not encourage the enemy to increase sales, and neglected the improper and poor gambling, and provided an important reason that the crew members of ordinary small ○○○○ did not implement training in preparation for an emergency, in compliance with the relevant regulations, and did not take rescue measures for passengers. In addition, it is determined that Defendant 16 Company (Nonindicted Company 4 Company) did not play an important role in the safety inspection agency that should manage and supervise the safety of passengers and the vessel.

Based on the above circumstances, the sentencing for the Defendants is determined. Based on the above circumstances, the following individual sentencing factors, including the Defendants’ status and authority, whether the Defendants were negligent in the burial of ○○○○○○, the measures taken for the rescue of passengers from the escape to the escape of ○○○○○○○○○, whether the Defendants participated in the measures for the rescue of passengers after the escape of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the crew’s experience and experience, the Defendants’ age, experience, family relationship, means and consequence of the crime, etc., were considered.

○ Defendant 1 (Week 42), 68 years of age, 43 years of age per week)

After the Defendant retired from office, he was employed as a contractual worker of Defendant 16 company (the company other than the public prosecution: the company other than the company 4), and the captain of Defendant 16 and Defendant 16 (the company other than the public prosecution: the company was unable to correct the business practices of Defendant 4) that encourage the over-fluence and bad gambling of cargo, since he operated the ship only when the captain of Defendant 16 and Defendant 4 operated the ship. It was normal that Defendant 68 years of age was not in a state of ordinary health by undergoing a tin surgery at the end of October 2013.

However, the Defendant left 304 passengers including those who wear life jackets in accordance with his waiting order and broadcast, and were waiting for rescue in order, and left alone. The so-called “alleys” did not perform any role as the captain, resulting in the death of those passengers, and even if they were to escape thoroughly, and only the seafarers escape first.

피고인의 무책임한 행위로 꽃다운 나이에 꿈도 펼치지 못하고 삶을 마감한 수많은 학생들, 생때같은 어린 자식들을 먼저 보내고 아직도 자식의 사진을 가슴에 품고 살면서 분노와 좌절 속에 신음하고 있는 부모들, 1년이 넘도록 장례도 치르지 못하고 팽목항을 맴돌면서 방황하고 있는 실종자 가족들, 구사일생으로 탈출하였으면서도 죄의식과 우울증 등 극심한 후유증에 시달리고 있는 생존자들에게 치유될 수 없는 깊은 상처를 남겨주었다.

Furthermore, the process of sinking ○○ Ho with a young student was revealed to many people who had been kept through the media, and the entire nation was suffering from collective depression. Trust in state agencies and social order was collapsed daily, and community was omitted from extreme division and confusion. Through external communications, the national attack of the Republic of Korea, such as the accident type of ○○ and the captain’s non-responsibilityed escape level, was reported in the world.

The defendant's act resulting in such a token is difficult to be used for any clear sense, and even in order to prevent such a scambling from being re-written in our society, he cannot be charged with strict criminal liability against the defendant. The defendant is sentenced to life imprisonment which is permanently isolated from the society.

○ Defendant 2 (42 years of age, 12 years of imprisonment)

The Defendant, as a first-class mate with work experience of 20 years and 5 months, has a responsibility to maintain restitution of 00, such as loading of flocks to the extent necessary to maintain the stability of the vessel, checking the loading and landing status of cargo, etc. Nevertheless, the Defendant failed to perform such responsibility and neglected the loading status of flocks to the extent that it does not reach the maintenance of restitution, and provided an important reason for the occurrence of an accident that ○○’s failure to perform the restoration due to the failure of flocks. In addition, the Defendant, as the first-class mate, provided that Defendant 1, as the captain, was in a position to act for or advise on the rescue of passengers, but failed to perform relief measures except for those where Defendant 1 requested rescue at sea through VHF, and that Defendant 1 did not actively assist passengers in the rescue and rescue of passengers at around 13 years from the time of escape from 00 to flocks. The Defendant did not provide advice on the most appropriate measures for evacuation and rescue of passengers.

However, it is difficult for the defendant to load only the adequate amount of cargo against the purport of the executives of the 16 company (Nonindicted 4 company) that promotes the defendant as a seafarer, taking into account the circumstances favorable to the defendant 16 company (Nonindicted 4 company) who was unable to receive training in preparation for an emergency while working for the defendant 16 company (Nonindicted 4 company) and supporting his wife and his age four children.

○ Defendant 9 (53 years of age, 10 years of imprisonment, 44)

As the head of an agency with 24 years and 11 months of work experience, the defendant is a member of the board of directors participating in the ○○-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-no-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho, where

However, since the defendant had left the steering house and stayed in the front corridor of the third floor engine room after the occurrence of the accident, it is difficult to accurately grasp the situation at the time, and all the parts found guilty at the court below have been led to a favorable circumstance.

○ Defendant 3 (46 years of age, 7 years of imprisonment)

The Defendant, as the 2nd mate, was in charge of communication with other external organizations, such as ○○ and VTS, after the accident. However, the Defendant attempted to broadcast the steering boat to the atmosphere following Defendant 1’s order, but failed to broadcast the steering boat by manipulating the string location of the steering boat, which led to the misunderstanding that the captain and the crew of the steering boat could not broadcast the boat directly at the steering boat. Furthermore, the Defendant, upon Defendant 1’s order, instructed the employees of the steering boat to broadcast the steering boat to the string of the steering boat, was aware that the passengers might face danger if not issuing the order to the 2nd crew of the steering boat. Nevertheless, it is highly probable that the Defendant did not criticize the crew members of the steering boat from among the major causes for the passengers waiting in the steering boat to get out of the steering boat without the order to get out of the steering boat.

However, around August 2012, the defendant started with a seafarer life in around 20 years and around 20 years after the military service, and worked on board ○○○ also on January 2, 2014, the defendant was actively making efforts to restore the restoration power of ○○ by operating Heing pumps after the ○○ was transferred, and made efforts to rescue passengers from Jindo VTS and the piracy, and even after escape from ○○○○, the defendant was taking into account that two persons who had been deprived of consciousness and consciousness were able to rescue passengers and live in one of them, and that all of the parts found guilty in the court below were led to confession.

○ Defendant 4 (25 years of age, 5 years of imprisonment)

Although the Defendant, as a three-class mate, was involved in an accident between the three-class mates on duty, he did not take any rescue measures for the duties and passengers, etc. to be taken before the front of the steering house, and even after escape from ○○ho Lake, there is a high possibility that the crew participating in the rescue measures for passengers may be criticized compared to the crew or the engine crew.

However, as a woman of 25 years of age, the defendant's work experience except for the practical training period is about 1 year and 2 months, and the court below's decision and this court held that the defendant's mistake is against his or her or her or her or her family, such as the appearance of the crime against the victim and her family, and the fact that her father and her mother are supported by her mother and her mother at the third year of high school shall be considered as a favorable circumstance.

○ Defendant 5 (55 years of age, 5 years of imprisonment)

Defendant, as Defendant 4, has a high possibility of criticism against crew members or engine crew members who participated in the rescue measures for passengers, in that the Defendants did not perform all activities for the rescue of passengers, even after they escape from the steering house, even though there was an accident between the moment they are on duty and the moment they are on duty.

However, it is advantageous to the fact that the defendant was the short working experience in ○○ from among the steering trees, and that the defendant was unable to actively engage in rescue activities for passengers without the direction of other executive crew members such as the defendant 1.

○ Defendant 10(57), Defendant 11(25), Defendant 13(56), Defendant 14(59), and Defendant 15(61)(3 years of age), respectively.

Defendant 10 is the first class engineer officer, Defendant 11, Defendant 13, Defendant 14, and Defendant 15 are the persons in charge of each early position, and when an emergency situation occurs, they are obligated to perform their duties on the emergency department assignment chart of 00 in order to ensure the safety of passengers. Nevertheless, the Defendants did not perform all acts necessary for the rescue of passengers until they escape from the corridor with the third floor where the third floor engine room was located. The Defendants did not know of the presence of passengers waiting on the ship, but did not suggest that they have contacted Defendant 9, the head of the agency, and did not contact the steering house to the steering house to grasp the situation or have passengers to rescue passengers. The Defendants escaped first than the crew of the steering house, and did not act to assist passengers in the rescue of the passengers.

However, the Defendants were waiting in the third floor engine room and were under the direction of Defendant 9, the head of the agency, so it was difficult for the Defendants to take measures to solely seek passengers without Defendant 9’s instructions. In addition, the Defendants did not receive information from the pilothouse, so it was difficult for the Defendants to accurately determine the situation of the vessel’s mobilization and the time when the rescue, including the piracy, were needed.

Defendant 10, after being rescued by tidal wave, attempted suicide at the Moel, and violated his mistake from the investigation stage to the court below and this court, and recognized all of the crimes.

Defendant 11, as a female under 25 years of age, has worked on board for about four months excluding the training period, and Defendant 16 was unable to receive training on emergency response measures during Defendant 16’s working hours. Accordingly, Defendant 11 lacks the ability to conduct rescue activities for passengers immediately after the ○ho Lake was transferred.

Defendant 13, as a disabled person with the fingers of leman’s fingers cut, did not have a health condition, and Defendant 15 was at the time ○○ Ho-ho, so far as ○○ was cut back and left right shoulder and knee in a state of being injured. Both Defendant 13, Defendant 14, and Defendant 15 were on the part of ○○○○○, and did not undergo emergency rescue training on passengers.

This point is considered as favorable circumstances to the above Defendants.

○ Defendant 7(59) and Defendant 8(57) (two years of imprisonment, respectively)

Defendant 7 and Defendant 8 were in a position to grasp the structural situation of the steering house after the accident as the steering gear.

However, Defendant 7, while making efforts to restore ○○○○○’s equipment immediately after the removal of ○○ Head, knew about the number of passengers on board ○○○○ and the situation at the time, and had been in charge of VHF communication and had been in charge of the rescue operation at 123 hours after the escape of ○○○○○○, Defendant 8 attempted to leave the door door at the time of the steering house even though he was a disabled person with no partial loss of her, and attempted to leave the door door at the time of the steering house at the time of the steering house. After the salvage of ○○○○’s equipment, there is a possibility of criticism against the crew of the institution that did not participate in the rescue operation in that he actively actively participated in the rescue operation by means of realizing the windows of the guest room under ○○○ head or drawing up the passengers on the lupt.

○ Defendant 6 (33 years of age), Defendant 12 (60 years of age) ( Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months)

Defendant 6 was in the position of a mate and did not engage in any other activities for the rescue of passengers except communication while serving in the steering house. Defendant 12, as a steering officer, escaped first with other engine crew members, and did not take all measures for the rescue of passengers even after escape.

However, the possibility of criticism among the seafarers was small in that it was difficult for all the Defendants to properly take rescue measures against the passengers, etc. in a situation where the rescue operation of ○○○○○○○, the mission at the time of an emergency, and the name of other seafarers was not properly well-founded without preparing a labor contract in the preceding day of the accident. Moreover, Defendant 6 was a part of the work experience of working on board less than three years and seven months, and Defendant 6 was a fall on another passenger ship on March 2014, and was in a state where he was unable to normally walk at the time of the accident because he was involved in the fall on the bridge while serving on the other passenger ship, and was in a state where he was unable to walk normally at the time of the accident. Defendant 12 was injured by the ○○○○ at the time of the back of the accident, and was killed after the accident, due to favorable circumstances should be considered.

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

1) The point of burial of occupational ships

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as described in the above 4.b. 2) A.

2) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as described in the above 3.c. (1).

3) Violation of the Marine Environment Management Act

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as described in the above 4. D. 1.

B. Determination

For the same reasons as stated in the above 4.b.(2)(c), it is difficult to recognize the occupational negligence of Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 on the part of Defendant 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. Conclusion

Since this part of the facts charged against Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, the court shall render a judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the burial of the occupational ship of the above Defendants, and the violation of the Marine Environment Management Act, and the summary of this part of the judgment pursuant to Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be made, but the court shall not render a judgment of innocence as long as it found Defendant 4 and Defendant

2. Part 3 of the victim non-indicted 3 among the murder committed against Defendant 1

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendant 1, as stated in the facts of the crime stated in the judgment below, did not evacuated to the victim Nonindicted 3 (the male and the 57-year old age), and waiting to get out of the ship, and could sufficiently rescue the passengers, etc. to get out of the ship. In light of the situation where the victim waiting to the ship as they were, Defendant 1 was aware that he could not get out of the ○○ho Lake, but could get out of the ship. Defendant 9 et al. did not take any rescue measures and did not intend to report the act to the captain on the 09:39. In order to get out of the ship.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 conspired with Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 9, and caused the above victims to die with the sea at that time.

B. Determination

In the judgment of the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles under the above 3. E. 3, the causal relationship between the defendant 1's act and the death of the victim for the same reason as stated in the part concerning the crime against non-indicted 3 of the missing person cannot be acknowledged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. Conclusion

Defendant 1’s charge of murder against the victim Nonindicted 3 constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, Defendant 1 ought to be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, in a case where Defendant 1 found Defendant 1 guilty of murder, attempted murder, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the victim Nonindicted 3, who is the ancillary charge

3. The crime of murder and attempted murder committed against Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 9

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as described in paragraphs 3. A. 1 and 4. A. 1.

B. Determination

In the case of murder and attempted murder committed by Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 9 for passengers, etc., it is difficult to recognize dolusent intent of murder for the same reason as above 3. A.C. In particular, it is difficult to recognize dolusent intention of murder for the same reason as above 4. A. 3).

C. Conclusion

Since this part of the facts charged against Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 9 constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as to Defendant 2, the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is related to the first preliminary facts charged, is found guilty, and as to Defendant 3 and Defendant 9, the sentence of innocence is not separately pronounced.

4. The part concerning the crime against the victim non-indicted 3 among the crime committed against the defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendants, as stated in the facts of crime No. 4, did not take any measures necessary for the rescue of the victim Nonindicted 3 (Nam, 57 years old), who was waiting for rescue according to air broadcast of the crew and sunken ○○○○○, the passengers of which were waiting for rescue according to air, and abandoned the Defendants, and caused the death of the said victims to the next death.

B. Determination

This part of the facts charged falls under the case where there is no proof of crime as seen in the above 3. E. 3.3, and thus, the acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty of the crime of abandonment or the crime of bodily injury caused by abandonment against other victims in relation to the above commercial concurrent crimes, the judgment of

5. Violation of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act against Defendant 2

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The captain and crew members of a ship who have caused an accident shall take necessary measures to promptly rescue persons in distress even if there is no request.

around 08:48 on April 16, 2014, 08: (a) around 08:48, the Chonam-do Chonam-gun’s Chonam-gun’s tidal wave lost its restitution at the sea of 1.8 nautical miles on the north bank; (b) the passengers were in distress, Ma○○, Nonindicted 3 (Nam, and 57 years old). Defendant 2 did not take necessary measures for the rescue of human life, such as prompt evacuation of the passengers in distress, as stated in the facts charged in the judgment, while Defendant 2 was the captain and crew of the ship who caused the accident, as stated in paragraph (2) of the same Article.

Accordingly, Defendant 2 did not take measures necessary to promptly rescue persons in distress with Defendant 1, etc.

B. Determination

The crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is a form of a mutual aid agreement, is established in cases where a certain constituent element is included in all other constituent elements, and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is found guilty of Defendant 2, is established when the captain or crew of the relevant ship who committed the crime of Article 268 of the Criminal Act, runs away without taking measures pursuant to the proviso to Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act, such as aiding and Aid at Sea and in the event that the captain or crew of the relevant ship, who committed the crime of Article 18(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, is in special relationship with the crime of violation of the Act on the Aquatic Rescue and Aid at Sea

C. Conclusion

Since this part of the facts charged against Defendant 2 constitutes a case that does not constitute a crime, it shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as it is found to be guilty of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is in a relationship with

[Attachment Form 4]

Judges Seo Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) In the case of Defendant 9, the part on Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, who recognized the murder by the lower court, are excluded.

(1) When the captain, captain, etc. of a ship in the vicinity of a distress site receives a request for rescue from a ship in distress or the head of a rescue headquarters or the head of a fire-fighting government office, he/she shall provide maximum assistance so that persons in distress can be promptly rescued as soon as possible: Provided, That the captain and crew of a ship in distress who have provided a cause for an accident shall take necessary measures to promptly rescue persons in distress even if there is no request.

3) If the captain or crew member of a ship who commits a crime under Article 268 of the Criminal Act due to the transportation of the ship under Article 2 of the Maritime Safety Act runs away without taking measures under the proviso to Article 18 (1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act, such as aiding and abetting victims, etc., the punishment shall be aggravated as follows:

(4) Article 21 (Preparation and Examination of Operation Management Regulations) (1) Operators of coastal passenger transportation services shall formulate and submit operation management regulations to the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries in order to ensure the safety of passenger ships, etc.

Note 5) In the case of Defendant 9, the part on Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, who recognized the murder by the lower court, are excluded.

Note 6) At the time, Defendant 3 and the employees of Nonindicted 59, who were the researchers of the non-electric power (JR 500) used by Defendant 3 and office employees.

7) Although Defendant 7 went out of the steering house prior to the escape of the captain of the ship, there was no possibility that Defendant 7 could not hear the direction of the captain of the ship since the time when the captain was instructed to get out of the steering house since around 09:40.

Note 8) On this witness, the lower court determined that “The number of years of Korean nationality leisure in the Philippines had been assisted by interpretation at the time of testimony in this Court, but it appears that the prosecutor or the defense counsel first understood the questions and made the answer well in Korean language.”

9) This is the act of a fire brigade commander called out to the scene of a fire at a high-rise building with out of the structure of passengers in the building and leaving the rooftop structure helicopter first, leaving the helicopter, or leaving the emergency room at night, leaving the emergency room alone and leaving the hospital or leaving the hospital.

10) According to the video images of the video CD on the 123th century, Defendant 2 was taken on the 123th decks from the time when the first instance court got off the phone call from Defendant 16, who was an employee of Nonindicted Company 16 (SP: Nonindicted Company 4), and was informed of the situation at the time.

11) In other words, even if a ship is in distress due to the negligence of another ship's operation, if another ship which is in the vicinity of the distress site is discovered and reported to the head of the rescue center or the head of the rescue center who received the report, and if the head of the rescue center requests the distressed ship to provide rescue services to the distressed ship, the ship in distress shall be in the vicinity of the distress site and the captain shall do so for the prompt rescue of the distressed person.

12) In other words, even if a ship that caused an accident gets out of the vicinity of the scene of the accident without knowing the occurrence of the accident, if the captain or crew of the ship becomes aware of the occurrence of the accident through the liaison of the neighboring ship, etc., the captain or crew of the ship is obliged to promptly rescue the person in distress.

13) As seen in the relevant provisions, Article 2 subparag. 4 of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act provides, “accident” refers to “a situation in which people’s lives, bodies, and ships are in danger of safety due to the sinking, stranding, mooring, collision, fire, engine failure, fall, etc. of ships, etc. on the surface of the sea or inland waters.” However, an accident may occur due to one’s own ship, not by other ships, such as fire, engine breakdown,

14) The definitions of terms used in this Act are as follows: 1. 2. The term “ship” means any kind of ships (including WIGble aircraft and WIG craft) used or usable as a means of navigation on water:

15) When vessels under Article 12 (Measures at the time of a collision) conflict, the captain of each vessel shall take all measures necessary to rescue human lives and vessels, and shall notify the other party of the name of the vessel, the owner, the port of registry, the port of departure and the port of arrival: Provided, That this shall not apply where a vessel under his/her command is in critical danger.

16) When a ship enters or departs from a port, passes through a narrow waterway, or when a ship is likely to be in danger, a captain under Article 9 (Direct Command of a Captain) shall direct the steering of the ship directly: Provided, That this shall not apply where he/she has an employee prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as a chief mate, etc., command the steering of the ship during the time to rest pursuant to Article 60 (3).

Note 17) Obags, a device for replacing the direction of the Russian vessel. In the case of ○○, two propellers are installed in two propellers and one propeller is installed in both propellers.

Note 18) The term “Stol” means the stopherbing of the string in the word “the center of the ship” means 0 degrees.

Note 19) In order to test the performance of the vessel, a test is conducted using the maximum 35 degrees typang angles of 360 degrees, to find out the moving distance in the long direction, the speed of the beam, the speed of the beam, the total required time, etc.

Note 20) Defendant 4 referred to as Narging.

주21) 위 문답과 관련하여 당시 피고인 4가 지도관님이라고 호칭한 사람과 주고받았던 문자 메시지의 내용은 다음과 같다. 지도관 : 그럼 타를 얼마나 썼는지는 모르고? 피고인 4 : 네.. 그래서 제가 마지막에 돌고 나서 아저씨를 봤거든요 지도관 : 응 피고인 4 : 타를 볼 수 없으니까 타기 어디까지 갓ㄴ는지. 하드까지 간 거 같은데.. 그 타가 기운 게.. 지도관 : 하드까지 간 건 고장 나서 그런 거지? 피고인 4 : 아. 그게 기억이 안 나서 지도관 : 고작 5도 변침하는데 하드까지 갈 이유가 없잖아 피고인 4 : 그건 모르겠고..

Note 22) The contents of the facts charged were deleted or compiled to the extent that it does not infringe the identity of basic facts and does not actually disadvantage the Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense, thereby organizing a crime.

Note 23) 23) Llasing - Stacking - Stacking on the floor of a ship using NAs, wire, liftss, hacks, etc. to prevent containers, cargoes, vehicles, etc. on board the ship from driving.

Note 24) means the distance from the bottom of a vessel floating on water to the surface of the water.

25) Article 28 (Maintenance of Reinstatement) (1) Any of the following owners of vessels shall maintain restitution in accordance with the standards determined and publicly announced by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries: Provided, That this shall not apply to vessels determined by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, such as vessels used for towing, marine accident structure, dredging, or measurement;

Note 26) The term “refitability” means the nature of a vessel that leaves the water surface in a normal state by external force, such as waves and wind (Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Ship Safety Act). According to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries’s notification (Standards for vessel restitution) of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, a passenger vessel’s vessel shall meet six restitution standards, such as the restoration 10 degrees (GZ10) at the angle 10 degrees of the crossing angle, the slope 10 degrees of the crossing angle, and the slope 10 degrees from the center of weight, taking into account the influence of the free surface of liquid, are at least 0.15 meters, with a height (GoM) from the center of weight to the breadth center.

Note 27) Goods weight means the maximum weight that can be loaded on board a ship in light of its condition, such as containers, cargoes, and vehicles.

Note 28) The draft her full load (the maximum load permitted for safe navigation means the total weight of the crew, passengers, cargo, fuel, water, food, etc. that the hull can load up to the water depth) and the maximum weight of goods.

29) Article 39 (Methods, etc. of Loading and Stoping Cargo) (1) A shipowner shall prepare a guide for loading and anchoring of cargo, which prescribes the method of loading and anchoring of cargo before loading or anchoring the cargo on a ship, and shall obtain approval from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries.

Note 30) When the hull is forward, there may be a slope from the opposite side of the hull to the other side of the hull, which might be a greater slope if there is a sway.

State 31) The facts charged are stated as follows: 29 crew members and 447 passengers are on board, but it is identified that 33 crew members and 443 passengers including 15 crew members, 5 crew members, 5 crew members, 2 staff members of the Philippines nationality, 6 part-time students, etc. including 6 crew members.

(1) When the captain, captain, etc. of a ship, etc. in the vicinity of an accident scene receives a request for rescue from the captain, etc. of a rescue headquarters or the head of a fire-fighting government office, he/she shall provide maximum support so that persons in distress can be promptly rescued as soon as possible: Provided, That the captain and crew of a ship who has caused an accident shall, without such request, take measures necessary for prompt rescue of persons in distress.

33) Although it is difficult to see that the obligation of the seafarers stipulated in the operation management rules of ○○○ constitutes a legal obligation, the seafarers, who are obliged to perform safety duties for passengers under a contract of carriage, correspond to specific measures to be taken in an emergency, and are dealing with the contents of the contractual protection obligation.

Note 34) The role of the crew in charge of each emergency situation is defined as an action planning sheet to cope promptly and systematically with emergency crew members.

Note 35) It is a device that enables people to get out of the sea into and out of the sea.

Note 36) According to the data analyzing the videos taken on the scene of the accident, it is presumed that ○○-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho-ho

Note 37) According to the data analyzing the video images taken on the accident site, it is presumed that 09:34, 02, 52.2.

38) In order to protect the victims’ personal information, the names of the victims, other than the crew members of ○○○, were written in secret name.

Note 39) Defendant 1 acquitted Defendant 3 of the charge of murder, which is the primary charge, on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the primary charge.

Note 40) During the Prosecutor’s appeal, the part of the injury of the victims listed in [Attachment 3] Nos. 15, 16, 20, 26, and 39, which was partially accepted by the Prosecutor, is recognized as an injury by abandonment, and was added to the part under the part under the part under the part of [Attachment 3] of the injury by abandonment.

41) Defendant 1’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Sea and in the case of non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 4 and Defendant 5’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 2’s violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Sea and in the case of non-indicted

Note 42) On April 16, 2014, the date of the accident, entered the Defendants’ age.

In principle, the sentencing criteria are not applicable to Defendant 1’s crime of murder and attempted murder, on the grounds that they are in a commercial concurrent relationship. Referencely, examining the sentencing criteria for the crime of murder, Defendant 1’s crime falls under “ordinary motive murder,” which is the second type of murder, and the special form of murder falls under the scope of sentence recommended to fall under the mitigation area, on the grounds that there is no such an aggravated element, and there is no such an aggravated element. Therefore, the scope of sentence recommended to fall under the mitigation area is “one to 12 years of imprisonment.” The sentencing criteria are concurrent crimes with the crime of violating the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in which no sentencing guidelines are set, and only the lower limit of the crime whose sentencing criteria are set according to the criteria for handling multiple crimes are recommended. As such, the scope of sentence recommended as a result is more than seven years of imprisonment. However, Defendant 1, taking account of

44) The crime of death or bodily injury by Defendant 9, etc. is an ordinary concurrent crime. Since the sentencing guidelines for the crime of abandonment are applied to the case prosecuted after October 1, 2014, the above sentencing guidelines are not applicable to the instant case prosecuted on May 15, 2014. In reference, examining the sentencing guidelines for the crime of abandonment by Defendant 9, etc., the crime of abandonment or abuse among the crimes of arrest, confinement, abandonment, and abuse constitutes the case where the crime of abandonment or death occurred, and the special sentencing offender constitutes “the case where the person intentionally committed the crime,” which is an element to mitigate, and “the case where the person committed multiple crimes or committed repeatedly over a considerable period of time,” which is an element to mitigate, the scope of sentence recommended as falling under the basic area is “the case where imprisonment is more than two years but not more than four years,” and the punishment period is set by escaping from the above sentencing range for Defendant 9, Defendant 3, Defendant 4 and Defendant 5.

45) Even in the case of Defendant 6 and Defendant 12’s crime of death or bodily injury, the sentencing guidelines for the crime of abandonment do not apply to the crime of abandonment. However, when examining the sentencing guidelines for the crime of abandonment by the above Defendants, the sentencing guidelines for the crime of abandonment are as follows: (a) where the crime of abandonment or abuse among the crimes of arrest, confinement, abandonment, or abuse occurs; (b) where the result of death occurred; and (c) where there is a reason to particularly take into account the crime of abandonment, which is a mitigation element, “where there is a special form of punishment,” and “where there is a reason to take into account the crime of death or bodily injury” (the first boarding of April 15, 2014, which is the case immediately before the accident of this case), and “where multiple victims or multiple victims are committed repeatedly for a considerable period of time,” and thus, the scope of imprisonment to be recommended is “one year and six months to three