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

The defendant is the actual owner of a tugboat C(44.43 tons) registered under the name of the defendant's spouse, who is the defendant's spouse.

A shipowner shall have a marine officer work on board in accordance with the standards for service of ship personnel prescribed by Presidential Decree, in consideration of the navigation area, size, use, output of a propelling engine, and other matters concerning the safety of ship navigation.

Nevertheless, around 07:30 on April 27, 2016, in order to carry human parts and equipment necessary for installation work of a large belt, such as a map, etc., the Defendant departed from a powder port without having the head of the agency aboard the aforementioned vessel, and again entered the same port on or around 09:50 on April 27, 2016, and violated the standards for working on board by operating the ship without having the head of the agency holding a license of class 6 engineer on 13 occasions in total, as shown in the attached crime list, from August 2, 2015 to April 27, 2016.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of the police as to B;

1. A ship inspection certificate;

1. The list of persons on board and the status of entry into and departure from ships;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of the Ship Register;

1. Article 27 subparagraph 5 of the Ship Personnel Act and Article 11 (1) of the Ship Personnel Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. In addition to the favorable circumstances such as the Defendant’s age, occupation, environment, character and conduct, background of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking account of various sentencing conditions in this case, including the following: (a) the Defendant’s application of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act to the provisional payment order repeated crimes over several times; (b) the Defendant was under the influence of criminal punishment for the same kind of crime; (c) the Defendant recognized the Defendant as committing the crime; and (d) circumstances that may be considered in the course