When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who operates a ship of 2.14 tons B (ship number C) from May 2015 to the Cheongcheon-gun located in the Chungcheongnam-gun.

As above, a person who drives a ship is familiar with specifications, including the gross tonnage of the ship, and does not lose cargo exceeding the gross tonnage of the ship, and since the above B is a ship subject to a building inspection, there was a duty of care to operate the ship after completing a building inspection and checking whether it is possible to ensure safe operation.

On August 20, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 15:00, at the Cheongcheon-gun, Chungcheongnamcheon-gun, the Defendant, while carrying at least 6 tons of cargo exceeding the gross tonnage of the ship in the above B, and at least 5.5 tons of cargo and 3 people, including 1st, in excess of the gross tonnage of the ship in the above B without completing the construction examination; (b) came to the middle of Cheongho-gun, and caused the weight of the cargo and the person to sit down in the water speed.

Accordingly, the defendant buried a ship in which people exist due to occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Report on the occurrence of all-round reproduction of a ship;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning ship nationality certificates;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 189 (2) and 187 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to the instant crime is that the Defendant buried a ship in which a person exists due to occupational negligence, and the nature of the crime is not that of the crime.

In addition, due to the burial of a ship, physical damage has occurred.

There is a history of crime that the accused has been punished for a fine on several occasions for a crime of double-class.

However, the defendant was committed by committing the crime of this case and his mistake was divided.

In addition, even though the crime of this case did not cause human life damage, and the victim does not want to be punished against the defendant.

After the defendant was punished by a fine in 2007.