2015Do11610 Occupational Death or Injury by occupational negligence, occupational injury, preparation of false public documents, uttering of false public documents, damage to public documents.

A

Defendant and Prosecutor

Attorney B

Gwangju High Court Decision 2015No177 decided July 14, 2015

November 27, 2015

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the occupational death and bodily injury by occupational negligence

A. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal as to whether the Defendant was occupationally engaged in business and prosecutor

In determining whether or not there is negligence in the rescue activities of a person in charge of rescue and relief, such as marine landscape that has been put into rescue activities at the time of a marine accident, the degree of general attention of ordinary people engaged in such duties and occupations shall be based on the standards, and the details of training, the relevant regulations and manuals, the action rules, rescue environment and conditions, the details and characteristics of accidents, the urgency, etc. shall be comprehensively taken into account.

On April 16, 2014, at around 09:30, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that: (a) the Defendant neglected to take the following measures: (b) on the part of the Defendant: (c) on the part of the Defendant: (d) on the part of April 16, 201, to maintain and ascertain the communications with the JJ; (b) on the part of his arrival; (c) on the part of his crew; (d) on the part of his crew; (d) on the part of his crew; (d) on the part of his crew; (e) on the part of his crew; (e) on the part of his crew; (e) on the part of his crew; (e) on the part of his crew; and (e) on the part of his crew crew; (e) on the part of his crew crew; and (e) on the part of his crew crew crew;

On the other hand, the lower court, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, determined that: (a) the Defendant’s negligence or failure to take each measure of “indipating the passengers to get off the ship using the J broadcasting equipment,” “indipating the passengers to get off the ship using the said equipment,” and “indipating the passengers to get out of the ship using the said equipment after April 16, 2014,” and “indipating the passengers to get out of the ship using the said equipment,” was not recognized; (b) in light of the aforementioned legal principles and duly admitted evidence, the lower court is just and acceptable; and (c) contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there

B. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal on causation

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below's determination that the causal relationship between the defendant's occupational negligence and the victim's death or injury is recognized is just and acceptable. Contrary to the defendant's allegation in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the law of logic and experience.

C. As to the ground of appeal by the prosecutor on the establishment of joint principal offense

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant and the Defendants cannot constitute a joint principal offender on the grounds that “the Defendant cannot be deemed to have a joint objective and intent liaison among the captain and crew of J, K’s officers and employees, operation managers, etc., and others. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. As to the preparation of false official document and the uttering of false official document

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court was justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Jo Hee-de