2) Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

53,500 won shall be additionally collected from the defendant.

To order the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

All appeals by the prosecutor about the obstruction of performance of official duties in relation to the E and F and the obstruction of the performance of official duties in fraudulent means are dismissed.

A. Defendant: misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unreasonable sentencing

1) misunderstanding of the legal principles as to excessive implied portion of the number of passengers on board and mistake of facts

The court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged without considering the following facts. In other words, the chief of the flight management office, in which the Defendant was in charge, was misunderstanding the legal principles and misunderstanding the facts. In other words, the chief of the navigation management office, who was in charge of the Defendant, is not the party to the safe navigation of coastal passenger ships, and is not the final decision-making authority. ② Operation management office does not fall under the Defendant’s own business and does not constitute a third party’s business, and there was no intention to interfere with the Defendant’s business. ③ There was no intention to interfere with the Defendant’s act. ③ The Defendant ordered the passengers to leave the port clearly, reported the fact of the transfer to Q, who was a superior agency, and reported the fact that the Defendant did not issue an order to leave the port, and there was evident evidence and circumstances that the Defendant did not issue an order to leave the port normally. The Defendant failed to prepare documents, such as “the check report prior to departure” and “the result of the visit of passenger ships”, and in fact, did not include 5175 passengers and 275 passengers.

2) misunderstanding of the legal principles as to instructions for operation of passenger ships which are incomplete in provisional inspection, and mistake of facts

The court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged without receiving an illegal solicitation from the M's representative is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and the fact that the N's repair is not subject to a provisional inspection under the Ship Safety Act.

3) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor: Error of mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles and unreasonable sentencing

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the acceptance of bribe

The Defendant, as the chief operating management officer of the Korea Shipping Association delegated the duties of safety management of passenger ships by the Commissioner General of the Korea Coast Guard, is deemed a public official pursuant to the Marine Transportation Act. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that the Defendant did not regard the Defendant as a public official who is the subject of acceptance of bribe.

2) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the parts concerning E and F.

A) As to the part (1) of the attached list of crimes in the judgment of the court below as to the annexed list of the court below, only two workers work in the operation management office at the time when a head of E and F departs from the port, and only one of them must be stationed in the operation management office to take charge of communication duties, and the remaining one is going up to the on-site inspection of the adjacent passenger ship. Therefore, if the defendant prepared the result of the visit of the passenger ship to E and F, it is reasonable to hold the defendant immediately left the port of E and F. Furthermore, the defendant is a person who reviewed the result of the visit of the passenger ship to the head of the operation management office, signed it, and confirmed whether the result of the visit of the passenger ship was normally prepared, and there is no reason to sign the result of the visit of the passenger ship, which is written as the result of the visit of the defendant, even if the defendant did not check it. It is too simple, and the court below acquitted this part of the facts charged

B) In full view of the facts that the defendant's status as the chief of the flight management office with regard to the attached list of crimes (2)-(5) as indicated in the judgment of the court below was the same as that of other navigation managers, the defendant was negligent in operating management while checking prior to departure; that the difference between the 8ft container and the 10ft container was easily distinguishable from the land; that in the case of subparagraph (e), the operation manager did not raise any problem as to allowing navigation managers to depart from the E even though it is impossible to perform its operation because it was not submitted with the restoration statement; and that there was preferential pollution, such as recommending the safe line ship to depart from the E, after receiving a contact for the purpose of boarding guidance from AH, the defendant committed an unlawful act of other navigation managers for the convenience of their operation management; and that the defendant conspired with the operation manager to use the same situation, and caused him to depart from the port and EF; therefore, the court below acquitted this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles.

3) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below is too unhued and unfair.

2. Ex officio determination

We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

A prosecutor shall maintain the part concerning the acceptance of a bribe in the facts charged in the instant case as the primary facts charged and applied for the amendment of a bill of indictment to add the facts charged as the ancillary facts charged in breach of trust. This court permitted it (the facts charged as the preliminary facts stated in the annexed Form hereinafter referred to as "preliminary facts"), and the part concerning the acceptance of a bribe among the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained. On the other hand, since this part of the primary facts charged was judged not guilty at the court below, it would be sufficient for the prosecutor to dismiss this part of the conjunctive facts added in the trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do3068, Feb. 8, 1985). As examined below, the prosecutor's appeal should be dismissed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do3068, Feb. 8, 1985). Thus, the part concerning the ancillary facts added in the first instance trial and the part which is found guilty in the substantive concurrent relation with the defendant and the prosecutor.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. The portion of the boarding wage exceeding the number of passengers

1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that, in full view of the provisions of the Marine Transportation Act, the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act, the Guidelines for the Management of Passenger Ships, and the provisions related to the Korea Shipping Association and the operations manager of passenger ships, and the following circumstances recognized by the adoption evidence, the lower court recognized that the Defendant, who is the chief of the navigation management office in charge of the operation management office of the G branch of the Korea Shipping Association, is aware of the fact that the Defendant, who is the chief of the navigation management office in charge of the operation management office of the G branch of the Korea Shipping Association, embarks on passengers exceeding the capacity capacity capacity of L, departs from L, and that the said passenger ships interfere with the safety management of the said passenger ships by a deceptive scheme, such as signing on the inspection report prior to departure and signing on the safety management report of the said passenger ships

① L is a passenger ship running G and S, and other passenger ships operating the same route due to aggravation of weather conditions on August 2, 2012 were controlled, and only Lhos operated.

② At the time, the navigation manager H was on board a sea-going return and on board a ship to provide guidance on boarding a ship, and the G Coast Guard Q and T were on board a ship in the G Coastal Police Station.

③ Q puts chapter 2-3 of the table to H in the missionary work under L. The list does not contain any seat indication, and only the name and telephone number of the director of the KU division were entered. Q directed H to the chief of the flight management office, directed Q to report to T to the G Coastal Police Station, by identifying the cause.

④ He called the Defendant to explain the above situation, and the Defendant visited J. I and Gohap L, a operations manager, to find the number of persons on board, as well as H who had already been promoted for L.

⑤ The Defendant and the flight manager landed Q and T between the number of persons on board and the number of persons on board.

6) As a result of the analysis of the number of passengers aboard as above, it became known that about 65 passengers were on board more than Lho Lake, and H instructed the captain to suspend departure from the port due to missionary work.

7) However, while H moved from the bend to the bend, L’s crew was shut down, and the above passenger vessel was fixed to the wharf. Accordingly, H was asked to the effect that H’s failure to hear that “the crew who operates the bend stop of departure” was “the crew was ordered to leave the port.” 8 The Defendant stated to the effect that “h’s finding that the Defendant was in the bend from the bend port would leave the port and depart from the port.” 8 The Defendant stated to the effect that “the Defendant got off the port,” and “the Defendant got off the port.”

(9) A person eligible to order departure of a passenger ship after confirmation of the excess of the board of directors under L remains only the Defendant and the navigation managers, including H, and it is difficult to deem that the extension of a passenger ship within the Republic of Korea departs from the port against the instruction of the navigation managers.

2) The judgment of this Court

A) Whether it constitutes another person’s business

(1) Although the safety inspection prior to departure of a passenger ship is basically stipulated as the duties of a navigation manager in accordance with the relevant statutes, such as the Marine Transportation Act, it is reasonable to deem that the Korea Shipping Association is also in charge of the duties of a navigation manager in relation to the safety inspection prior to departure of a passenger ship, and accordingly, the Korea Shipping Association may prepare internal regulations or give instructions necessary for the duties within the scope of appropriate duties of a navigation manager and supervision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do703, Oct. 29, 2015).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the defendant, who is the chief operating management officer of the Korea Shipping Association G branch, was in charge of the safety inspection prior to departure from the port, constitutes another person's business which becomes the object of the crime of interference with business in relation to the Korea Shipping Association.

The defendant's assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

B) The lower court’s determination as to whether it interfere with the business of the Korea Shipping Association by deceptive means is based on the fact that the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that there was an obstacle to the safe navigation of the said passenger ship by boarding passengers exceeding the capacity of L, found the fact that the Defendant interfered with the safe navigation of the said passenger ship through deceptive means by allowing the Korea Shipping Association to leave the port with the knowledge of the fact that there was an obstacle to the safe navigation of the said passenger ship, and by allowing the Defendant to enter the “report prior to departure” and the “report prior to departure” as if it

(1) At the time of departure, H stated at the court of the first instance that “I am so far as I am so far as I am ‘I am so far as I am? I am you am?? I am?? I am you am???? I am you am??? I am?? I am you am?? I am you am??? I am you d't am??? I am you d't am?? I am? I am you am? I am? I am you d' you am? I am? I am? I am you am? I am you am about the reason that I am d'. I am d' I am you am about the fact that I am. I am you d was under the order of departure, and am under the supervision. I am you am d' you am you am? you am? you am you am? you you am you you you am you am you am................

(2) The Defendant asserted to the effect that Q left the above vessel under Q’s instructions, and that himself was not the final decision-making authority. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s statement about the situation at the time of receiving Q’s departure instructions was inconsistent, and that it is inconsistent with the statement and statement with the relevant persons at the scene, it would be difficult to believe this Defendant’s assertion. Rather, in full view of H.J and T’s residues in the present situation, Q appears to have left before the excessive number of persons aboard the vessel’s coefficient. Furthermore, in the first instance court, the Defendant voluntarily stated that “H was only the Defendant,” and that it was reasonable to view that the Defendant was the final decision-making manager of the operation manager at the time of departure from the port at the prosecutor’s investigation, and that it was reasonable to deem that the Defendant was the chief of the operation manager at the time of departure from the port, who was the chief of the operation manager at the time of departure from the port.9).

(3) Also, there seems to be a strong support for the Defendant’s order to leave the port with an implied boarding fact. In other words, the Defendant’s design attempted to break the instant case by arranging the passage between H and K (LA, 10, an employee of H and K (LA, a staff member of LA, 10) who followed the process of leaving the port on the day on which an excessive boarding was at issue. Furthermore, on August 2, 2012, the Defendant’s confirmation signature was completed, only the fact that the Defendant carried out an inspection of Lho on board without any entry in excess of the prescribed number of passengers, and 11) the Defendant’s presence on the following day does not include any circumstances as to excessive boarding that occurred on the day before the details of the Lho Safety Control Inspection Meeting.12)

B. Instructions for operation of incomplete passenger ships

1) The judgment of the court below

① At the time of the instant crime, the lower court determined that: (a) at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was the chief operating management officer who supervises the affairs of the Korea Shipping Association G branch G branch’s G branch’s operation management office; (b) H was the operating manager of the said operation management office; and (c) H was the Defendant who was aware of the fact that the N branch’s repair was completed but did not undergo a provisional inspection; (c) the Defendant was unable to operate a ship which was not subject to a provisional inspection; (d) however, the Defendant instructed H to leave the port on the following day; (d) the Defendant asked H to question how H would leave the ship without a provisional inspection; and (e) on August 6, 2013, the lower court, upon the Defendant’s instruction, determined that the Defendant’s operation of a passenger ship was under the influence of the Defendant and the Korea Shipping Association, thereby obstructing the Defendant’s temporary inspection manager’s operation of the passenger ship.

2) The judgment of this Court

A) Article 314 of the Criminal Act refers to any force that may cause confusion with a person’s free will. The term “defluence” refers to any force that may cause confusion with a person’s free will, whether tangible or intangible, and includes not only violence and intimidation, but also social, economic, political status and pressure based on the right and interest rate. In reality, it is not necessary to control the victim’s free will, but also does not need to control the victim’s own will.

In light of the purpose of the victim’s free will, it means the ability sufficient to suppress the victim’s free will. The determination of force ought to be objectively made by taking into account all the circumstances, such as the date and time, place of the crime, motive and purpose of the crime, number of persons, capacity, mode of force, type of duty, and the status of the victim

B) A navigation manager is a specialist who is qualified under the law and is appointed by the Korea Shipping Association and under the direction and supervision of duties of the Korea Shipping Association. However, when the navigation officer performs his/her duties, he/she shall be determined independently and shall not restrict or influence technical matters (Article 7 of the Decree on the Operation and Management of Passenger Ships). If there is a concern over impeding the safe operation of passenger ships, the navigation manager shall immediately report to the head of the competent regional maritime affairs and port office and devise the measures (Article 5 subparagraph 6 of the Guidelines on the Safety Management of Passenger Ships). The navigation officer shall conduct an inspection by the captain and the head of the relevant ship, and shall confirm and sign the details of the inspection and report prepared and submitted by the captain. The safety inspection of passenger ships prior to departure shall be conducted every departure from port (Article 3 of the Guidelines on the Operation and Management of Passenger Ships).

C) When collecting the aforementioned legal principles, relevant regulations, and shower relationship, H independently performs the operation management duties related to the safety inspection of passenger ships. The Defendant’s remarks given by ordering H, who is the chief of the operation management office of the Korea Shipping Association branch, to leave a ship that did not undergo a provisional inspection, using the status of the chief of the operation management office of the Korea Shipping Association, appears to be sufficient to suppress H’s free will. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant interfered with H’s operation management duties by force, as stated in the facts charged, of passenger ships by force.

D) Furthermore, as examined in Section 3A(2)(a)(1) of the above, the Korea Shipping Association is in charge of the duties related to the performance of the duties, such as safety inspection before departure from the port under the relevant laws and regulations. It is reasonable to deem that the Defendant interfered with the duties related to the performance of the duties of the Korea Shipping Association by exercising the power against H belonging to the Korea Shipping Association.

E) Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that: (a) no departure permit may be granted without undergoing a provisional inspection; and (b) the unit repair of the unit is not subject to a provisional inspection under the Ship Safety Act; (c) the unit repair of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the vessel; (d) the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the vessel of the unit of the unit of the unit of the vessel; and (d) the unit of the unit of the unit of the vessel of the unit of the vessel.

4. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. Part on acceptance of bribe

1) The judgment of the court below

A) The lower court deemed that the Defendant, who is an employee of the Korea Shipping Association, cannot be deemed a public official or an arbitrator to whom the provision on the acceptance of bribe applies, and the members of the “G-S New License Deliberation Committee” cannot be deemed as a public official who is the subject

B) A thorough examination of the evidence of this case in light of the records reveals that even according to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the defendant is not a public official or an arbitrator who is the subject of the crime of acceptance of bribe, and there is no provision on legal fiction as a public official, and thus, the court below's judgment of not guilty of this part of the facts charged is justified, and there is no error of misunderstanding legal principles

B. Parts related to heading E and F

1) As to the attached list (1) of the judgment of the court below, it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was that the defendant, as shown in the above list of crimes, signed the inspection report prior to departure of each passenger ship, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant directly left the port of E and F, and on the other hand, the result of the visit of the passenger ship is a kind of document for the efficient management of the operation management office's duties, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant is directly engaged in the safe operation of the passenger ship through the visit of the passenger ship, as long as there is no evidence to prove that the departure of the passenger ship is determined by the act of recording or signing on the result of the visit of the passenger ship, it is difficult to recognize that the act of the visitor entered his name in his name or signing on

Furthermore, with respect to the attached list of crimes (2)-- (5) of the judgment below, the court below held that, unless there is any evidence to prove that the above operation manager issued a written confirmation on the check prior to departure, such as the act of ordering the operator in charge of the operation manager to take any particular safety measures and sign it on the check report prior to departure, and involvement in false preparation of the result of the visit of passenger ships, the operation manager in the operation management office of the defendant committed obstruction of performance of official duties through fraudulent means and the defendant was in a position to know that the defendant was the chief of the operation management office, merely because the defendant conspireds with the above operation manager to act jointly with the above operation manager's intent to jointly process, thereby interfering with the marine transportation management of the Korea Shipping Association and the safe operation of passenger ships by fraudulent means.

2) A thorough examination of the evidence of this case in light of the records reveals that the court below's decision of not guilty of this part of the facts charged is justified on the basis of the above determination of evidence, and there is no misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts as pointed out by the prosecutor.

5. Judgment on the ancillary charges added at the trial of the political party

A. Summary of the facts charged

Attached Form 3 is as shown in the "preliminary facts charged".

B. Summary of the defendant's assertion

1) In relation to the point of the receipt of property in breach of trust on February 16, 2012 and November 7, 2012, the illegal solicitation stated in the facts charged is referring to the convenience of K(V) in performing the operation and management of passenger ships, and this constitutes a mere breach of the highest preference in performing the operation and management of passenger ships, and the above request does not contravene the social rules and the principles of good faith.

2) With regard to the receipt of the instant passenger ship in breach of trust on August 2, 2012, it cannot be deemed that there was a request to impliedly accept the departure of the instant passenger ship, and instead, the Defendant did not request from A that the relevant persons of KR have made the instant request to impliedly accept the departure of the passengers of the instant case.

3) The Defendant’s payment of the meal value by the K’s corporate card is merely the payment of the meal value at the ceremony of the K employees and the operating management employees of the K’s office, and it does not constitute an illegal solicitation, not a payment of the meal value based on the private precedents.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The crime of taking property in breach of trust under Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person who administers another person's business obtains property or profits from property in exchange for an unlawful solicitation in connection with his/her duties, and the crime of taking property in breach of trust is not established unless an illegal solicitation is accepted between the donor and the purchaser of property or profits. The "illegal solicitation" in this context does not necessarily require it to the extent that it constitutes the substance of occupational breach of trust. If it is contrary to social rules or the principle of trust and good faith, it is sufficient to determine that it is contrary to the contents of the solicitation, the amount of the consideration related thereto, form, and integrity of transactions, which are protected legal interests, should be comprehensively examined, and even if the solicitation is made implicitly and explicitly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9602, Dec. 24, 2008).

2) Specific determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court, it can be recognized that the Defendant received goods and entertainment (a total of KRW 1,991,000 in total) equivalent to the sum of KRW 1,99,00 from the persons concerned in K in exchange for unlawful solicitation. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion disputing this cannot be accepted.

A) Regarding illegal solicitation

(1) The point of taking property in breach of trust on February 16, 2012

On February 16, 2012, the Defendant received from K’s executives W and X one of the two Liart Liarts, and at the time of market depression, K was trying to start a new service of GS route. 18) At that time, at that time, the Defendant was the captain of the GS route, and was the president of the new license review committee. On February 17, 2016, the Defendant stated that the Defendant’s multi-use of the Defendant on February 17, 201, includes the contents related to the K’s new service route, and that K is an affiliate of BL. 19) upon full view of the fact that K is an affiliated company of BL, it can be recognized that the Defendant was granted the explicit or implied name that the Defendant was able to perform its duties as the head of the new license review committee and the head of the operation management office to be conducted in the future from W and X.

(2) On August 2, 2012, on the same day, on August 2, 2012, the Defendant: (a) confirmed the fact that K had exceeded the passenger capacity, but did not take any measure; (b) AA stated in the prosecutor’s investigation that “I would like to have calculated the Defendant’s drinking value using a corporate card at the location of the Defendant, who was called from the Defendant to explain the number of passengers today.” (b) On August 2, 2012, 2012, the G branch’s operation management office was written as an inspection of boarding; (c) on the following day, the Defendant was not written as to the above over-board; and (d) on the other hand, 22) the Defendant was informed of the fact that the Defendant had received an interview from the prosecutor’s office with the Defendant, 3) and 4). The Defendant did not appear to have been informed of the fact that the Defendant was able to receive an improper request from the prosecutor’s office.

On the other hand, although the defendant at the time argued that the defendant had been a place in which K-related persons were seriously asked, U is able to say that the defendant in the drinking place "I can see the defendant's judgment "from the next day," and 25), as seen earlier, if the defendant knew that he had been aware of the overboard of L and actively instructed to leave the port, he did so, and the defendant asked AA to inform Ha of the overboard and Ha of the overboard's fact, and 26, it seems that he was a place in which he tried to correct the fact that the defendant instructed the overboard and to leave the port, rather than the K-related person, it is difficult to accept the above argument of the defendant.

(3) On November 8, 2012, the point of taking property in breach of trust.

In full view of the fact that the residents’ conference implemented on November 7, 2012, the day immediately before November 8, 2012, which was 11, held frequently as a matter of the danger of contact L, and that the Defendant received contact from AG on November 8, 2012 in the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “AA calculated the drinking value with a corporate card.” In full view of the fact that AA made a statement to the effect that “the said value was calculated with a corporate card,” it may be recognized that the Defendant was given the explicit or implied solicitation that the convenience in the operation and management of K’s passenger ships.

B) On the cost of job performance

In full view of the relationship between the defendant and the donor, the circumstances at the time of paying the above meal costs, the goods and entertainment offered to the defendant are up to 1,991,00 won in total, and K recorded as "entertainment expenses" in the corporate card, etc., it is difficult to evaluate the quantity of the goods and meal costs that the defendant received by the corporate card as merely using it as a private case, and it is reasonable to view it as the consideration for illegal solicitation.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding acceptance of bribe among the part of the verdict of the court below's conviction and the part of the verdict of the court below, since there are reasons for ex officio reversal due to changes in the indictment as seen above, the corresponding part of the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the argument of unfair sentencing by the defendant and the prosecutor, and it is again decided after the oral argument as follows. On the other hand, the prosecutor's appeal as to the obstruction of business related

Criminal facts

The criminal facts recognized by this court are the same as the corresponding column of the judgment of the court, except for addition of the statement in the column of the Preliminary facts charged, and therefore they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Summary of Evidence

1. The original judgment and the part of the original judgment of the defendant in the court room;

1. The legal statement of the witness Q, H and AA at the trial;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each prosecutor's statement made to P, U, and AA;

1. Copies of each prosecutor's statement of H and Q;

1. Each investigation report (R statement, attachment of the relevant operation management office to the G operation manager's note, report attached to the work guidelines of the shipping association operation management office, attachment of the accused's multi-locks attached to the accused's protocol of interrogation, and details of the use of entertainment expenses);

1. A copy of each investigation report (a copy of the safety management guidelines for passenger ships related to a ship operation manager, the registration standards for a passenger ship operation management office, the submission of a preliminary statement, and a report accompanied by presented documents

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 357(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of receiving property in breach of trust, inclusive, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 314(1), 313 of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing business by fraudulent means, the choice of imprisonment), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing business by fraudulent means, the choice of imprisonment), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravated Punishment for Concurrent Crimes by Fraudulent Means)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Additional collection:

1. Scope of sentencing under the latter part of Article 357(3) of the Criminal Act: Imprisonment with prison labor for one month to seven years;

2. Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period from April to June 28).

3. Determination of sentence: Ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence;

The lower court sentenced the Defendant to a suspended sentence of two-year imprisonment for six months on the ground that the Defendant’s work as the chief of the G Branch Management Office of the Korea Shipping Association G Branch, which supervises the safe navigation management of the vessel and directs and supervises G vessel operation managers, obstructed the safe operation management of passenger ships by deceptive means or by force, and thus, the Defendant interfered with the safe operation management of the vessel and the operation manager of the Korea Shipping Association and punished the equivalent punishment accordingly.

In the first instance trial, as the ancillary charge against the defendant was additionally found guilty, there was a need for water heavier than the original judgment. However, the acquisition amount of the defendant cannot be deemed to be a relatively high amount of 553,500 won due to the crime of taking property in breach of trust, which is additionally recognized. In addition, even if considering all the conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, even if considering all the conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, the punishment is not to be imposed, so the scope of the increase of

Part of innocence (the point of acceptance of bribe)

The judgment on this part of the facts charged and its judgment is the same as the statement from 9 to 16th 8 of the judgment of the court below. Since there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found guilty of each crime of taking property in breach of trust, which is the ancillary facts charged,

Judge Lee Jong-soo

The number of judges

2) The expression that was reduced by the lower court is used as it is.

3) ① The former Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 111, Nov. 19, 2014) (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries) shall include a report on inspection before departure from a port

2. The range of traffic safety issues, including on-board confirmations and on-board confirmations as to whether the number of passengers on board exceeds the number of passengers on board, as well as maintenance of order in navigation.

Matters concerning the safe operation of a passenger ship shall be prescribed as the duties of a navigation manager (Article 15-8(1)), and guidance and supervision over the performance of his/her duties

The Commissioner General of the National Police Agency shall appoint a operations manager (Article 15-9(1)) while being in charge of it (Article 15-9(1)) and appoint a Korea Shipping Association

section 15-7(1) and (2).

(2) On the other hand, the Korea Coast Guard shall provide for the safety of passenger ships, etc. pursuant to the Enforcement Decree of the Marine Transportation Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Marine Transportation Act, and the Enforcement Rule

The Korea Coast Guard's Guidelines for Safety Management of Passenger Ships (Notice No. 2013-5 of the Korea Coast Guard Notice) is established and implemented.

For the purpose of performing no duties, an operation management office shall be established and operated, and the chief director of the Korea Shipping Association shall operate the office with the approval of the Commissioner General of the Korea Coast

It requires the Korea Shipping Association to establish guidelines for the operation of the operation of the operation management office, such as operating guidelines for the manager (Article 13(1) and (2) of the same Guidelines);

shall provide the operations manager with safety education, such as measures to prevent marine accidents, regulations related to safety of ships, guidelines for safe navigation management of ships at least once a year.

The former Maritime Association Act (amended by Act No. 12844, Nov. 19, 2014) (Article 7(1) of the same Guideline), as well as Article 7(1) of the same Guideline

In relation to the appointment of a navigation manager and the operation of the navigation management office, the safety management of passenger ships and the safety management of ships under Article 6(1)14.

The Korean Shipping Association shall provide that the business is conducted with respect to the safety management of passenger ships within a certain scope of its business.

section 23.

(3) Pursuant to the above relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, such as the safety management guidelines for passenger ships mentioned above, the Korea Shipping Association shall perform operation managers by internal regulations.

The standards for the operation of the passenger ship operation management office to apply the operations of passenger ships shall be prepared, and the duties of the operation manager shall be determined by the Enforcement Rule of the Marine Transportation Act.

The operation management affairs of passenger ships as provided for in the Guidelines shall be determined (Article 3), other division of affairs (Article 4), operation hours of the operation of the operation management office (Article 5), operation management

Article 6 (Article 6) and Article 7 (Article 7) of the Act on the Operation and Management of Passenger Ships efficiently.

For the management, the safety inspection report on passenger ships before departure is kept in the operation management office for three months (Article 9(3)). Furthermore, the Korean Shipping

The Cooperative shall prepare and implement the 'Guidelines for the Management of Affairs of the Operational Office of Passenger Ships' which further specify the standards for the operation of the Operational Office of Passenger Ships.

In order to record and maintain documents as a result of the visit of passenger ships and obtain approval from the head of the operation and management office on the documents;

The chief of the operation management office shall specifically grant the authority to guide and supervise the duties of the operation management officer under his/her jurisdiction.

4) Two pages of the examination record of the witness H

5) Three pages of the examination record of the witness H

6) In one-time prosecutorial investigation, the Defendant ordered the captain to leave the port before Q Q, and complied with it, during the special transport period.

The purpose of smooth transportation has been stated to the effect that it will be dealt with in the light of what is the smooth transportation purpose (Evidence No. 1, 877 pages), and the prosecution investigation in the fifth prosecutor's office.

Q 5 minutes later than 5 minutes since Q '60 persons who had been on board the place where the ship was located at the place where the ship was located.'

The operator stated that he would leave the signal as he would leave (No. 1,223 of the evidence records) and the six prosecutor's investigation.

Q, who was aware of his departure from the port, knew Q Q's overboard, and Q's action is taken by Q, and the operator is called "Ha", and the operator is called "Ha".

H stated that he left the court (No. 4 of the evidence record No. 1,668), on the other hand, H in the prosecutor's investigation on the above statement of the defendant

Because there is no fact, it would be difficult to see to see to see: ( Q) if it was the same to leave the ship for the purpose of smooth transportation.

It would not be called the chief of the office, putting in the tag, and the low boarding to prevent the excess of additional boarding on the port of call.

No one was allowed to take a business trip in advance and provide guidance on boarding, and then shipping the report to him/her. The report on the result is over-board.

The report was not written, and the report was prepared and delivered only to be cautioned to prevent overboard at the port of call, and the head of the office after departure.

To make a telephone to the head of the Nar, why you have left his port, and asked him so that he can dnick, so that he can not get out of the island, and that he cannot get out of the island.

dices." (Evidence No. 1,190, 1,191 pages)

7) The statements of the persons concerned are as follows:

① At the court of the first instance, H stated that “ Q was not visible at the time of the Defendant’s coefficient, and was the same as that of the ship” (a witness).

H Examination record of the witness examination in the trial of the court of the first instance against H

2. The J, which was the coefficientd with the Defendant, shall sound that the Defendant has 60 scisfed by 60 scisfes on the other scisfs immediately before he/she gets off his

A statement was made that there was no friendly memory, and that when a passenger ship moves to an officer who gets off, the officer made a statement that she was unable to memory the warning (Evidence).

Appendix 1:1,226 pages) and the defendant said that he was "the defendant was a matcher", and the passenger ship at the time of "the passenger ship was completely prepared for departure."

When the defendant talks that I should not take a measure under the influence of the Do Do Do dong, the defendant ordered I to promptly get off the ship.

Then, the passenger ship entered the port immediately (Evidence No. 1,227 pages).

(3) In the prosecutorial investigation, T shall, “in the course of departure, from the pilothouse to about five minutes after the departure time has already elapsed at the time, Q would go to the captain while Q would put it into the captain.

He stated that he was killed, and that he was killed, for the first time (Evidence No. 4 1,238 pages).

(4) The captain BD, in the prosecutor's investigation, indicates that "the departure time has been delayed due to the dispatch of the date," and that the vessel operation managers are conducting an inspection.

He was in the missionary work, and the notification that she will leave the military without leave from the military among our employees will be given to us. On this day us's staff.

It is well aware of who is ordered to leave the port, but at ordinary times, it is thought that the operator has issued the departure order.

(c)"Statement" (Evidence No. 1,981, 1,982 pages).

8) Three pages of the examination record of the witness H

19) 1,013 pages of evidence records

10) At the trial court, AA made a statement to the effect that H was in the process of a trial, and that the Defendant, AA, or U was given an explanation (Witness).

A. Examination of the witness in the trial of the party against A. 7 pages)

11) One copy of evidence recording 152 pages

12) One copy of evidence recording 156 pages

13) The gist of this part of the facts charged is that the Korea Shipping Association and the operations manager interfered with the operations of passenger ships of H by deceptive means or by force.

B. However, the court below held that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant interfered with the business by fraudulent means, and that the obstruction of business by fraudulent means is public.

Except in the facts charged, the lower court did not render a separate verdict of innocence. The lower court appears to have dealt with this part by selective public prosecution, and the prosecutor also dealt with it.

Therefore, this part of the judgment of the court below shall be subject to the grounds for appeal, and it shall not be separately determined.

14) ① In the prosecutor’s investigation, H: “At that time, the Defendant did not agree to the contents of the Haitius, but did not end the phone.”

The principle of the defendant and the prosecution are too subjective and change, and there are considerable difficulties for employees to perform safety duties.

The statement was made that there was "(1,201 pages of evidence records) and 2. P, which was a poor chief of the navigation management office, was an atmosphere in which the defendant suppresss the fall.

In addition, it was made a statement to the effect that it was a situation in which many employees of the operation management office were tension (Evidence No. 1 1,207 pages).

15) Witness H 10,11 pages 10,00

16) Four books of evidence 1,676 pages

17) Although the argument and judgment on the facts charged added in the trial are made, it seems that the judgment on the grounds of appeal for convenience is just a decision on the grounds of appeal.

18) One copy of evidence recording 919 pages

19) 1,038 pages of evidence records are affiliates of BL. On the other hand, K is affiliates of BL.

20) 1,224 pages of evidence records

21) 1,107 pages of evidence records

22) Evidence records 1 908 pages

23) Evidence records 1 909 pages

24) Evidence Nos. 1,670-1,671 pages of evidence records

25) 1,059 pages of evidence records

26) 1,107 pages of evidence records

27) One copy of evidence recording 701 pages

28) 1. Breach of trust acceptance (this case’s sentencing guidelines for breach of trust acceptance was enforced on July 1, 2014, prior to July 1, 2014, which was charged on 2014, 5, 30. However, the point of breach of trust acceptance was the point of receipt of the property.

After that, since the indictment was added to the application for the revision of the indictment on January 30, 2015, the sentencing criteria shall apply.

[Determination of Punishment] Misappropriation

【Special Convicted Person】

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from April to October

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria for interference with the duties (the sentencing criteria for interference with the duties shall be decided on February 2, 2015 and from July 1, 2015, and the sentencing criteria shall be enforced in this case.

(1) In the case of reference, if the sentencing guidelines are applied, the scope of the recommendations shall not be less than 6 months of imprisonment, but not more than 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment.

(Basic Field)

3. Handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of four months to seven years.

The crime of breach of trust and the crime of interference with business to which the sentencing criteria are applied are concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Since the lower limit is set by the lower limit of the sentencing criteria for the property in breach of trust subject to the sentencing criteria, the lower limit shall be set by the lower limit of the sentencing criteria, and the upper limit shall be set by the applicable sentencing