(b) The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty in whole where part of the crimes of multiple crimes related to ordinary concurrent crimes is not guilty;

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was a difference in the sentencing conditions when the court below found only a part of the offenses guilty, where part of the offenses in the ordinary competitive relation are not guilty.

All appeals by Defendant 3 and 4 are dismissed.

Examining the adopted evidence by the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the preparation of false official documents as shown in the judgment of the defendant 3 and 4 and the facts constituting the same events, and the passenger safety check in the judgment of the court of first instance is clear that the ship inspection officer's monthly inspection of passenger ships and the document stating the result of inspection in accordance with the Passenger Ship Safety Control Manual (Direction of the Maritime Affairs and Port Authority), and as long as the above defendants prepared a document in the judgment of the court of first instance as if they conducted safety inspection and safety education of ships at the time of entry without conducting the safety inspection and safety education of ships, they are aware of the fact of the false official documents. Thus, the judgment of the court below convicting the above defendants is proper, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts or incomplete deliberation due to the violation of the rules of

There is no reason for all arguments.

2. We examine Defendant 11 and 2’s grounds of appeal (including the supplement of grounds of appeal in the case of Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal filed after expiration of the period).

A. As to the crime of damaging public documents

Examining the evidence of the first instance court cited by the court below in light of the records, it shall be sufficient to acknowledge the crime of damage to public documents as stated in the judgment of the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or lack of reason that recognized facts based on evidence without credibility as stated in the judgment of the court below, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, incomplete trial, or lack of reason. In addition, it is clear that the above defendants are the objects of the crime of damage to public documents, and in light of the mother and the process of the crime revealed in the above evidence, the above defendants are joint principal offenders of the crime of damage to public documents. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to this purport is proper, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and even after examining the grounds for appeal by the defendant 1, there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of legal principles as to this point.

There are no grounds for all the arguments on this part of the above Defendants.

B. As to the crime of destroying evidence

The crime of destroying evidence is established when the evidence in a criminal or disciplinary case of another person is destroyed. If the defendant destroys the material that would be the evidence for the remaining one's own interest by preventing him/her from being subject to a criminal or disciplinary punishment, then such act may not be subject to the crime of destroying evidence in a criminal or disciplinary case of another accomplice at the same time (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do1446, Jun. 22, 1976). The same applies to the case where such act results in the destruction of evidence in a criminal or disciplinary case of a person who is not an accomplice of the defendant.

In relation to the sinking of the vessel of this case, the court below accepted the first instance court's criminal fact that the above Defendants requested the prosecution to submit documents concerning the performance of duties of the Port Authority related to the safe navigation of the vessel of this case, and the public officials belonging to the Port Administration and its office had already discovered the excess operation of the vessel of this case with four copies of a certificate of excess operation from the captain, etc. and did not take any measures accordingly, and left alone without taking any measures, and ordered the above Defendants and other port authorities to subject to criminal punishment and disciplinary action. At the same time, the above Nonindicted Party ordered the non-indicted to retire four copies of a certificate of excess operation as at the time of the original inquiry, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the above documents, and at the same time, destroyed the evidence of the case of violation of the Ship Safety Act against the Co-defendant of the first instance court who was detained in relation to the excessive operation of the vessel of this case. However, even if the above criminal fact itself of the court below itself is a crime of destruction of evidence, the above Defendants cannot be punished for the destruction of evidence.

Therefore, the above judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of destruction of evidence, and on the other hand, the judgment of the court below which found the defendants guilty all of the crimes related to the ordinary concurrent crimes is erroneous in the case where there is a difference in the sentencing conditions (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Do384 delivered on December 9, 1980). Thus, the part against the above defendants among the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1 and 2 is reversed and remanded to the court below. The appeal by Defendant 3 and 4 is dismissed in entirety. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)