어선법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the summary of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant's joint inspection with respect to C exceeded 9.9% of the limit permitted by the upper deck structure and the above numerical value alone could affect the maintenance of human safety at all times or at all times, and it could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant used for navigation C without undergoing a provisional inspection, but the court below acquitted him of the facts charged in this case.
2. Determination
A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is the captain and owner of a fishing vessel C (9.7 tons) fishing for female fish shipped.
The owner of a fishing vessel shall undergo a temporary inspection where a change that is likely to affect the airworthiness of the fishing vessel or the maintenance of the safety of human life occurs due to a marine accident, etc. as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries concerning the equipment of the
Nevertheless, the Defendant used the above fishing vessel for navigation 7 times in total from January 14, 2015 to October 20 of the same year, even though it extended above 9.9% of the limit permitted on the upper deck structures of the vessel that could affect the maintenance of the sense of navigation of the fishing vessel at the start of the winter-dong at the time of leisure time, and the Defendant used the above vessel for navigation 7 times in total from around 14, 2015 to around 20, respectively.
B. In full view of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged that, as a result of a temporary inspection conducted on July 14, 2016 at the leisure branch of the Korea Ship Safety Technology Authority with respect to C, the structure expanded by the Defendant does not exceed the permissible limit of the registered structure, and that, even if the registered volume of waste is the same as that of the registered tonnage, the value can vary within the scope, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone that the Defendant exceeded 9.9% of the permitted limit of the upper deck structure of C.
There is no other evidence to recognize it, and even if there is no other evidence.