선박의입항및출항등에관한법률위반
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) was as follows: (a) the Defendant failed to find a plan for the self-safety management of the loading and unloading of dangerous goods, which was placed in B (hereinafter “instant vessel”); (b) and (c) subsequently, known the police officer controlling the act of keeping the same at the port of the instant vessel. Therefore, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant kept the plan for self-safety management of
2. Determination
A. The Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal at the lower court, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s argument on the grounds of the judgment in detail.
B. The following circumstances admitted by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant’s self-safety management plan for the loading and unloading of dangerous substances duly approved at the time of the investigation by the investigative agency.
Although there was a change in the statement about the place where it was found, and there was no reason to obtain the statement about the change, and the statement was not found. ② Meanwhile, although the defendant called the police officer to find a plan for the self-safety management of the loading and unloading of dangerous substances, it is not confirmed that the ship of this case was actually equipped with the cargo loading and unloading self-safety management plan approved by legitimate law, ③ the police officer so called the defendant to submit the plan for the self-safety management of the loading and unloading of dangerous substances at the time of the police investigation, which was submitted by the defendant at the time of the police investigation, was issued by F Co., Ltd. which entered into the charter contract with the defendant, not by the defendant, and was also issued by Whman, which was not the Busan Regional Coast Police Agency.