Defendant 1 and two others

Kim Tae-hun (prosecution, public trial), Park Jae-hoon, and Cho Young-young (public trial)

Law Firm Squa et al.

1. Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, by imprisonment for eight months, and by imprisonment for six months, respectively;

2. With respect to Defendant 3, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means against Defendants 1 and 2, and the charge of destruction of evidence as of December 6, 2014 against Defendants 2 is not guilty.

1. Career, position, etc. of the Defendants

A. Career and status of Defendant 1

Defendant 1, as the president of the △△ Group, was the vice president of Nonindicted 23 on July 1, 199 and was affiliated with Nonindicted Company 1 on July 1, 2019, directed and supervised Defendant 2 as the vice president of Nonindicted Company 1, and has overall control over the field of internal services and hotel business. Defendant 1 resigned from the vice president on December 9, 2014.

B. Careers and duties of Defendant 2

Defendant 2 was employed by Nonindicted Company 1 in around 1983 and from around 2007 to the date, Defendant 2 took charge of the personnel management, internal services, safety services, and other affairs related to crew members, and has been assisting Defendant 1, the vice president, as an officer of the guest room ledger.

C. Career, work in charge, etc. of Defendant 3

Defendant 3 was employed as an aviation safety supervisor of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s aviation policy room and its affiliated week 1) after he was employed as Nonindicted Company 1 from around 1987 to around 2002, and was in charge of supervision of the safe operation of Nonindicted Company 1, Nonindicted Company 19, and Nonindicted Company 25’s aircraft guest room among domestic airlines.

Defendant 3, as Defendant 2’s university and Nonindicted Company 1 for three years, maintained a close relationship with Defendant 2 from the beginning of his entry, and even after becoming the aviation safety supervisor, Defendant 3 maintained friendship, such as cutting golf or standing a light investigation, even after becoming the aviation safety supervisor.

2. Defendant 1’s violation of the Aviation Security Act, interference with, and coercion

(a) Affairs and status related to the security and safety of the captain, the chief secretary, and crew members;

The captain shall be responsible for the flight safety of the aircraft while engaged in the operation of the aircraft 2) supervise the crew of the aircraft 3) and shall perform the duty of judicial police officer 4) with respect to offenses committed on the aircraft.

The cabin crew shall perform the safety services, such as the escape of emergency passengers aboard the aircraft, and perform daily safety services, such as ① the inspection before flight, ② the inspection of emergency equipment, such as fire extinguishing equipment in the aircraft, pressure-handling equipment, emergency escape equipment, etc. ② the control and treatment of hand-on baggage, ③ the confirmation of whether passengers remain in the seat and seat tag, ③ the confirmation of obstacles on the emergency exit and the passage, the confirmation of the condition of storage and diving of mail, and restrictions on the use of electronic devices, etc.

In addition, the chief of the office or crew appointed by the captain shall perform the duties of assistant judicial police officer for the crime in the aircraft (7) and shall be in charge of duties to prevent illegal acts in the aircraft, such as where the safe operation of the aircraft is likely to be impeded or it is impossible to operate the aircraft as security personnel in the aircraft (8).

The captain of an aircraft or a flight crew entrusted with his/her authority by the captain of an aircraft may take necessary measures to prevent any act detrimental to the security of an aircraft, any act detrimental to human life or property, any act disturbing order in an aircraft, or any act violating the regulations in an aircraft.

The Aviation Act and the Aviation Security Act, due to the characteristics of passenger aircraft requiring the highest safety, grants the captain and crew the right to control the operation, security, etc. of the aircraft.

B. Progress of Defendant 1’s compulsory flight of the aircraft and the chief of the office

1) Defendant 1’s aircraft boarding and 1st class service response unit

Defendant 1, around 00:37 on December 5, 2014 (based on the local time time of a new bath; hereinafter the same shall apply), on the 7th day of the New York JFK International Airport No. 1 Terminal No. 7, which was scheduled to start 00:50 on the same day, boarded as a passenger seat in the 2A seat of Nonindicted Party 1 Company A380, ○○○○○○○○○ Aircraft 1, which was scheduled to start at 00:50 on the same day. At the same time, only two passengers, including the passengers boarding the 1A seat and the Defendant, were on the 1st day.

At around 00:43 on the same day, Defendant 1 asked whether Non-Party 2, the crew of the first class, Non-Party 2, who was ordered in advance by the above Defendant, was “Iskyl (one kind of the dog) and the paper burged in the form of a string,” and asked whether “Iskdo Do Do Do dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dum dumb

(ii) the safety inspection of aircraft and the commencement of food whites;

At that time, the above flight crew members had been in charge of safety and security inspections prior to take-off, such as seat level, seat list, storage status of animals, etc. for the preparation of take-off, and Non-Indicted 3 was prepared to show a video image of the monst test on the safety of passengers.

At around 00:51 on the same day, the above aircraft was in the state of being prepared to move an aircraft by separating boarding bridge from a set with the approval of Pusush 10) from JFK Airport Control Office (Push 10) and linking it with the front wheels of the aircraft.

3) Defendant 1’s bathing, assault, suspension of operation of aircraft, and instruction of Defendant 1’s crew members

Nonindicted 3 was prepared for a video screening, sent by Nonindicted 2, suspended his duties immediately, and brought about 1st class column and 1st class column in which the guest room service manual is stored to Defendant 1.

Accordingly, Defendant 1 stated to Nonindicted 3 that “at any time bring about gallons” to Nonindicted 3, “at any time, bring about gallons 11). Nonindicted 3 in the play 1st class malle 12) brought about a gallon file file with Nonindicted 3, and Defendant 1 said that “at any time, there were 2A seat gallethms and 3 the hands of Nonindicted 3, aground on the file with the aforesaid gallon,” and that “at any time, there was no galley,” and Defendant 1 said that “at any time, there was no galley”.

At this time, Non-Indicted 2, who was observed in the following side, moved to Nara Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and Non-Indicted 2 that occurred on his own spot, and she should knee and knee-knee-kneing. Service manuals are well known, and a service manual is also known. It means a day-to-day and kne-kne-kneing. It means a day-to-day, the left door (L1) of the 1st class seat (L1) in the future, she return to Non-Indicted 3, and “this aircraft is set up and set up, and a day-to-day kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kick (in contact with the captain),” and “The contact was made to put up an aircraft-to-kne-kne-kne-kne-kick.”

Around that time, at around 00:53:40 on the same day, an aircraft had already been in the state of Alphysi (Tirway, leading roads) and Nonindicted 3, who was aware that the aircraft is in actual transit, had the aircraft flowed to Defendant 1, saying, “I cannot set up an aircraft from the runway to the runway,” but Defendant 1 instructed Nonindicted 3 to put up an aircraft repeatedly once again, “I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am off, I am.”

4) Aircraft clurbation, marp return, and grate-in.

At around 00:53 to 00:54 on the same day, Non-Indicted 3, who was under pressure with verbal abuse and high-tension order of Defendant 1, reported to Non-Indicted 4 to the captain “I shall return the aircraft due to the current abnormal situation,” and Non-Indicted 4 received a brief report from Non-Indicted 3, “I will desire to stop the operation of the aircraft without delay (this approximately approximately 22 seconds move) and check to Non-Indicted 3 in order to grasp detailed circumstances.”

Passengers do not have any authority to have crew members, etc. as a service problem, and the captain and the chief of the affairs division have the right to control inside the aircraft and control Defendant 1 is required to control Defendant 1, who is merely a passenger, divided into the above age of the vice president (one day) of Defendant 1, who is merely a passenger, and Nonindicted 4 moved back to the opposite direction that he returned to the JFK Airport Navigation Control Office at around 00:56 from 00:54 to 00:56 on the same day after obtaining approval from the JFK Airport Navigation Control Office (Romp) and return to the opposite direction that he proceeded with the aircraft at around 00:57.

In the case of the above JFK Airport, even if the length length is narrow and about 10 meters move, it obstructs the passage of other aircraft, and if the aircraft at the time stops without prior control, it could cause considerable danger, such as the possibility of collision with other aircraft.

5) Defendant 1’s instruction to make verbal abuse, assault, and clerical officer’s duration;

On the other hand, at around 00:54:02 on the same day, Defendant 1 returned to 2A seat at the time of the suspension of the above aircraft, and Nonindicted 3 also kneeing both knee, on the ground that Nonindicted 3, who was kneeing Nonindicted 3, read as “I am knee,” and that “I am knee, knee, knee, knee, knee, knee.”

While Defendant 1 had Nonindicted 2 search for manuals, he did not participate in the gallon file files, and collected them to Nonindicted 2, caused them to face on the chest side of his chest. Defendant 1 had Nonindicted 2 pushed off on the chest side of his chest while continuing to occur at the seat, and led Nonindicted 2’s shoulder up to approximately 3 to 4 meters high L1 entrance, followed up the said gallon file, cut off the gallon file, and repeatedly sound “spon”, and repeatedly sounded Nonindicted 3, “I would promptly bring about and get off the gallon file.”

After that, Defendant 1, who returned to 2A seat, ordered the crew non-indicted 5 to find manuals.

공소외 3은 그 사이 기장에게 L1칸 인터폰으로 상황을 보고하고 있었는데, 피고인 1은 공소외 5가 태블릿 PC에서 찾은 해당 매뉴얼을 부사무장 공소외 6으로부터 건네받아 매뉴얼 해당 부분을 읽고 난 다음, 고성으로 “사무장, 그 새끼 오라 그래”라고 고함치고, 그 소리에 달려 온 공소외 3에게 “이거 매뉴얼 맞잖아, 니가 나한테 처음부터 제대로 대답 못해서 저 여승무원만 혼냈잖아, 다 당신 잘못이야, 그러니 책임은 당신이네, 너가 내려”라고 소리치고, 공소외 3에게 삿대질하며 L1 출입문으로 몰아붙인 후 “내려, 내리라고!” 라고 반복하여 소리쳤다.

On the other hand, at around 01:00 to 01:03 on the same day when the aircraft returned to a boarding boat, Nonindicted 4 sent the aircraft to the traffic control tower and the flight control manager and the aircraft manager “the assistant chief, the assistant chief, the assistant chief, not the assistant chief, the assistant chief, and the assistant chief, not the assistant chief, and the assistant chief, should be replaced.” The plane chief received the communication from the flight manager “the assistant chief, the assistant chief, without the office chief, the assistant chief, and the assistant chief, the assistant chief, and the preparation was conducted for getting the crew, such

6) Connection to boarding schools, open to the public and office:

At around 01:03 on the same day, Nonindicted 3 transferred the security and safety of the guest room to Nonindicted 6, and reported to the captain that “I have come to get off the room instead of female crew and will transfer his duties to the vice-chief.” At that time, the boarding bridge was completed, and the boarding bridge was opened.

Non-Indicted 3 died in sequence with Defendant 1 and 1st degree passengers, and Defendant 1 voiced Non-Indicted 3 as “Ismama’s headquarters”. Non-Indicted 3 went on the aircraft around 01:05.

The captain Nonindicted 4, the secretary Nonindicted 3, and vice-chief 6, etc. designated as the in-flight security personnel, were judicial police officers who committed the crime on the aircraft, such as disturbance, assault, etc., but the group “oner” was a group’s duty to control and arrest Defendant 1 who committed the crime on the aircraft, but they did not exercise all duties as judicial police officers, considering that they were divided into the highest manager of Nonindicted Company 1 and Defendant 1, the vice-president.

(vii) the departure and arrival of delay in aircraft;

After that, the above aircraft with 247 passengers was approved again from JFK Airport Control Office at around 01:13 on the same day, and 24 minutes delayed compared to the scheduled departure time.

In the above process, the above aircraft was landed at the Incheon International Airport around 05:26 on the same day as the 11 minute delayed compared to around 05:15 on December 6, 2014 (the base time of the Republic of Korea; hereinafter the same shall apply), which was the scheduled time for arrival, without any guidance for the moutton, delayed departure, etc. in the above process.

C. Specific legal application

1) Violation of the Aviation Security Act

At the same time, the aviation law and the aviation security law as the in-flight security personnel are assigned to perform their duties as judicial police officers on the aircraft at the same time, and they are prepared to take off the aircraft and needed to manage and supervise the thorough safety inspection of the aircraft and the safety and performance of the cabin crew.

Nevertheless, as described in the above B, Defendant 1 committed an act of assaulting Nonindicted 3 and crew Nonindicted 2 to obstruct the security or operation of an aircraft, and obstructed the normal operation of an aircraft in flight by stopping the aircraft in transit by force, thereby getting the aircraft in flight to stop and return it to a stop.

(ii) interference with business;

Defendant 1 merely is a passenger subject to the control of the captain and crew, and without any authority to give instructions on the operation of the aircraft to the captain, etc. on the aircraft, Defendant 1 interfered with Nonindicted 4’s duties concerning the operation of the aircraft and the control of the internal safety in the aircraft by force, such as abusive language, assault, assault, etc. against Nonindicted 3, crew Nonindicted 2, etc. on the background of the status of the chief executive officer of Nonindicted Company 1, the vice president, and the vice president. Defendant 1 interfered with the duties of Nonindicted 3 and crew Nonindicted 2 on the safety, safety, passenger services, etc., including the “stop-off inspection,” and interfered with the duties of Nonindicted 3 and crew.

(iii) coercion;

Defendant 1, as described in the foregoing B, committed direct and indirect assault or intimidation against Nonindicted 3, thereby leaving him/her to waive normal service and conduct the said aircraft on his/her part, and thereby having him/her perform an act without any obligation.

3. Defendant 2’s coercion, destruction of evidence, or concealment of evidence;

A. Case background

On December 5, 2014, Defendant 2 received a report from the Central Control Office of Nonindicted Company 1 on the fact that Defendant 1 took-off after having Defendant 1 carry out an office work, as indicated in paragraph (b) of Article 2, around 15:03 (on the part of the Republic of Korea: 14; hereinafter the same shall apply) on December 5, 2014, Defendant 2 received an e-mail with the content that Defendant 1 took-off from the Central Control Office of Nonindicted Company 1. On the same day, around 15:15 of the same day, Defendant 1 should be deemed to be a crew member in short of one of the bean service, to be de-y against each of his duties, and all of the persons in charge should be deemed to be e-mail before the head of the team, and immediately received the e-mail with the content that “the head of the team, Nonindicted 15, 24, and Nonindicted 7 shall promptly check the relevant facts in detail from Nonindicted Party 3

Defendant 2, at around 19:12 on the same day, confirmed the fact that Defendant 1 forced the head of the team leader to return the aircraft that was in a flick to prepare for take-off by exercising the right of force, such as abusive language, verbal abuse, etc., and, around 21:42 on the same day, he had Nonindicted 7 contact with Nonindicted 2 in flight and confirm the truth, and confirmed the fact again through a fact-finding report prepared by Nonindicted 7 from Nonindicted 2.

Accordingly, even though Defendant 2 became aware of Defendant 1’s abusive behavior, such as Defendant 1’s abusive language, etc., caused the instant aircraft magaton event, Defendant 2 attempted to distort and distort the case to the effect that “The launching of the instant aircraft magaton event is in the process of performing duties, such as the violation of the manual of the internal office chief and the first class crew, and is in the process of performing duties, such as the violation of the manual of the first class crew, and is punished due to the wrong judgment of the office chief and the captain pointed out by the vice president.”

(b) Forced;

1) Forced Nonindicted 3 to prepare a explanatory note and a warning note

On December 6, 2014, at around 16:30 on December 16, 2014, Defendant 2 had the head of the team, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 3, who arrived at the Incheon Public Port, immediately left the office of Nonindicted 1 Company located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address omitted). On the same day, from around 19:00 to around 21:30, Defendant 2 demanded Nonindicted 3 to “it shall not be able to take out externally, such as Defendant 1’s humiliation and verbal abuse, etc.,” from among Nonindicted 14 and Nonindicted 15, etc., the head of the team demanded that the head of the team “the head of the team, in consultation with the head of the office, take place at the flight season,” and had the person prepare a statement of circumstances distorted and concealing the truth by repeating and correcting 5-6 times.

Defendant 2 stated in the explanatory note that Nonindicted 3 “I will be able to go ahead of it” in the process, and read Nonindicted 3 to the effect that “I would have to go against what punishment? I would be said to be a mistake? I would not be able to say that I would have to go against it. I would not be able to say that I would be able to say that I would not be able to say that I would be able to say. I would like to be able to say that I would be able to be able to us? I would be able to us? I would be able to say that I would be able to us? I would be able to say, I would be able to take responsibility on this day and be subject to any punishment? I would be able to sign the explanatory note.”

In addition, Defendant 2 instructed Non-Indicted 3 to prepare the same writing of the time, and the non-Indicted 3 refused to draw up the letter of the time, which read, “I see why we should write the letter of the time. I do not see why we should do so,” and if we refuse to do so, Defendant 2 threatened Non-Indicted 3 with Nonindicted 3 in a manner that seems to have the same attitude as it would make it difficult for him to work in a normal manner, such as being at a disadvantage in personnel affairs in the future.

2) Force Nonindicted 3 to make a false statement and make a false confirmation at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport investigation against Nonindicted 3

Defendant 2, around 10:00 on December 8, 2014, when the investigation policy of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport with respect to the background of the discharge of the aircraft of this case was published, Defendant 2 instructed the person subject to investigation, such as Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 6, to jointly seek for Defendant 1’s bath or assault at the domestic reception team office of the above Nonindicted Company 1’s Kimpo headquarters on December 8, 2014, and to make a false statement by reducing the maximum distance of the flight aircraft.

Accordingly, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, as Nonindicted 3 is a government agency, so it is impossible for Nonindicted 3 to make a false statement, and Defendant 2 expressed to Nonindicted 3 that “Isson’s government agency and the government agency are in the past, and there should be people in our non-indicted 1 company.” “When resolving this day only, I can do so,” and that “Isn if Isn if Isn't comply with the instructions, Isn't have the right to reply to the vice president, the situation is spreading, thereby threatening Nonindicted 3 to return human resources damage.”

Defendant 2, as seen above, went in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport at around 16:00 on December 8, 2014 after intimidation and Nonindicted 3, and heard Nonindicted 3’s statement at the Accident Investigation Committee of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and by inducing the investigator to make a false statement, Defendant 2 created an atmosphere that makes Nonindicted 3 unable to make a false statement by going in the middle of questioning by the investigator, and by inducing Nonindicted 3 to collect his answer or make a false statement. After the investigation is completed, Defendant 2 took Nonindicted 3’s meeting until around 23:00, and prepared a false written confirmation of self-written confirmation again.

3) Sub-determination

Defendant 2, like the above 1) and 2, by threatening Nonindicted 3 to have difficulty in living a normal company due to disadvantage in personnel affairs, etc. On December 6, 2014, Defendant 2, excluding Defendant 1’s abusiveism, assault, etc., made each of the particulars of Nonindicted 3’s business malpractice and the end of the time, respectively, with the exception of Defendant 1’s abusiveism and assault. Defendant 2, on December 8, 2014, made Defendant 1 prepare a letter of confirmation to submit the national land register with a content that reduces Defendant 1’s mistake, thereby making Defendant 3 perform an act without any obligation.

(c) A destroyed or concealed teacher;

Defendant 2, around 14:00 on December 11, 2014, at the office of the above non-indicted 1 company, reported the commencement of search and seizure by the prosecution, and the head of the team leader instructed the non-indicted 15 to “the search and seizure was conducted in the prosecutor’s office, to contact his employees, to collect all data such as mail, and to keep related data.” Nonindicted 14 and 11, etc. deleted the files related to the non-indicted 3 stored in the computer in the office’s computer directly or in accordance with the instructions given by the team leader, and deleted all the files of this case in accordance with the instructions given by the defendant 2, while the team leader of the guest room headquarters was removed from the computer used by the defendant 2 and the non-indicted 11 inside the office, and could not discover the data related to this case, such as the details of the instant e-mail and correspondence stored in the computer.

As a result, Defendant 2 instigated the destruction and concealment of evidence on his criminal case.

4. Defendant 3’s disclosure of official secrets

A. Case background

Defendant 3, as the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport aviation supervisor in charge of Nonindicted Company 1’s guest room, organized an investigation team for the plane situation of the instant aircraft, and had Defendant 1 take charge of investigating overall matters related to Defendant 1’s disturbance, Defendant 3 was willing to divulge the contents of the investigation, investigation plan, etc. upon Defendant 2’s request.

(b) Disclosure of official secrets

1) On December 8, 2014, Defendant 3 informed Defendant 2 of the result of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport investigation that “Around December 21:26, 2014, Defendant 3 calls Defendant 2 to 37 seconds, and calls two minutes and 18 seconds via phone from Defendant 21:36 on the same day, and Defendant 3 received from Defendant 1 to 18 seconds.” Defendant 3 notified Defendant 3 of the result of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport investigation to the effect that “A report is to be made that there was no verbal abuse, etc.

2) On December 9, 2014, Defendant 3 notified Defendant 2 of the results of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport investigation to the effect that, around 19:25 on December 9, 2014, Defendant 3 calls to Defendant 2 for 10:22 seconds, calls from Defendant 21:21 on the same day, and calls from Defendant 9:11 on September 21, 201, and did not find any disturbance and suspicion of Defendant 1’s vice president.

Accordingly, Defendant 3 disclosed official secrets by law as a public official.

[Paragraphs 1 and 2]

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. The witness Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3 made a statement concerning this case several times from the date of the occurrence of this case to the date of this court. The first report prepared in the U.S. was made without properly verifying the long time water surface and meals, and without checking the situation at the time and without considering the position of the related officers and employees. The detailed changes in the statement or expressions are made in detail, and some contents are not somewhat exaggeration of the circumstances of this case. However, it is difficult to clearly memory all things in the situation of the extreme interest of Nonindicted 3, the victim, because of the urgent progress of this case, and the statement of Nonindicted 3 is consistent and clear as a whole.

1. Part of the first interrogation protocol against Defendant 1, the first interrogation protocol against Defendant 2, part of the fourth interrogation protocol against Defendants 2, and part of the first interrogation protocol against Defendants 3 by the prosecution

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 11 (second installment), Nonindicted 4 (part), and Nonindicted 9 (part)

1. A written statement prepared by Defendant 3 (Evidence Nos. 6, 488 pages) and a written statement prepared by Nonindicted 13

1. Part of Non-Indicted 1’s written statement concerning Non-Indicted 26 and Non-Indicted 9 ○○○○○ Reurn

1. A written request for investigation and a transcript of defendant three personnel records; and

1. Investigation report (report on the execution result of a warrant of search and seizure of the head office of the guest room of the company other than the prosecution) , investigation report (report on cell phone and e-mail analysis such as persons related to the company 1), investigation report (report on the attachment of cell phone and e-mail tracking e-mail of the aircraft 00 ○○○○○) , investigation report (verification of the contents of e

【Paragraph 3 of this Article】

1. The defendant 2's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3

1. Part of the first and second prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant 2

1. Part of the prosecutor's protocol against Defendant 2

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 2 (2) and Nonindicted 11

1. A written statement prepared by Nonindicted 11 (As of December 11, 2014)

1. Part of the investigation report on December 5, 14 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport against Defendant 2 on December 5, 194

1. Investigation report [report on the attachment of voluntarily produced articles (report on the result of investigation into non-compliance with the crew regulations, explanatory report, time letter, gallon, etc.), investigation report (report on the search and seizure of the office of Non-Indicted Party 1 of the Incheon International Airport), investigation report (report on the execution of search and seizure warrant of Non-Indicted Party 1 of the International Airport 1), investigation report [report on the attachment of e-mail by Defendant 1 of December 5], investigation report [report on the attachment of e-mail by Defendant 1 of the International Airport 1], investigation report (report on the attachment of e-mail by Defendant 1 of December 5 (report on the attachment of e-mail by the vice president of the company 1), cell phone and e-mail analysis such as the persons related to the company 1), investigation report (information on contact between Defendant 2 and the vice president of the company 1 of the company), preparation and report on the recording of the records of the evidence submitted by the non-Indicted Party 3, etc. related to the reduction

【Paragraph 4 of this Article】

1. The defendant 3's partial statement

1. Defendant 2’s second and third examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor (the second examination of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s statements made by Defendant 2 that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s investigation opinion was taken by Defendant 3 was natural; Defendant 2’s third examination of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s investigation result, which is the contents of the report, cannot be deemed to have been reversed in the second examination; Defendant 2 was present with his defense counsel at the time of the second examination; Defendant 2 was a long-term relative with Defendant 3; Defendant 2 did not seem to have made a false statement unfavorable to Defendant 3, in light of the following: (a) the statement made by Defendant 2 cannot be deemed to have been reversed; (b) Defendant 2 was present with his defense counsel at the time of the second examination; and (c) Defendant 2 was a long-term kind of relationship with Defendant 3, which

1. In light of the fact that Nonindicted 1 Company KE086 A380 reported by Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 1 Company KS086, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2014, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 8’s investigation officer at the end, Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 3 were actually involved in the investigation by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of December 8, 2014, Defendant 3 appears to have known of the results indicated in the above report).

1. Investigation report (the analysis report on Nonindicted 1 Company 1, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 27’s personal PC e-mail), investigation report (the analysis report on the cell phone and e-mail with the persons related to Nonindicted 1 Company), investigation report (the contact analysis between Defendant 2 and the vice president of Defendant 1), investigation report (the analysis of the suspect’s cell phone details), investigation report (the analysis of Defendant 1 mobile phone details) and investigation report (the analysis of Defendant 2’s regular director and Defendant 3’

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1: Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act (Change of Course of Aircraft), Articles 46 and 23(2) of the Aviation Security Act (the point of assaulting the safe operation of aircraft), Article 324 of the Criminal Act (the point of coercion), Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing business operation)

(b) Defendant 2: Article 324 of each Criminal Act, Article 155(1) and Article 31(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of force), Article 155(1) and Article 31(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of force of force), Article 324 of the Criminal Act, Article 15(1) of the Criminal Act

C. Defendant 3: Article 127 of the Criminal Code

1. Commercial competition;

(a) Defendant 1: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishment on the violation of the Aviation Security Act due to an assault that obstructs the safe flight of aircraft, interference with business, and punishment on the violation of the Aviation Security Act due to an assault that obstructs the safe flight of aircraft with the largest punishment);

(b) Defendant 2: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment of the Crimes of Destruction of Evidence and the Crimes of Concealment of Evidence, and Punishment of Punishment of the Crimes of Destruction of Evidence which are more severe than the Crimes)

1. Selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 2: Imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of destroying evidence

B. Defendant 3: Selection of imprisonment with prison labor

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment of Crimes of Violation of the Aviation Security Act due to Alteration of Course of Aircraft with the largest punishment)

(b) Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes with Punishment sentenced to Crimes of Coercive Punishment which are heavier Crimes)

C. Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (a heavier penalty than the offense committed on December 9, 2014)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 3: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Determination on the assertion on the violation of the Aviation Security Act due to the alteration of a sea route

A. Determination as to the assertion that an aircraft does not constitute a sea route under Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act when the aircraft moves on the ground in airport facilities

1) Summary of the assertion

Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act provides that "air route" refers to "air route" in light of its prior meaning, practical use, and the provisions of relevant statutes, such as the Aviation Act, and it is not included in "air route" and it is not allowed to interpret that an aircraft is included in the aviation route under Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act even when it moves on the ground and passes on the ground as it violates the principle of no punishment without law.

2) Relevant provisions of the Aviation Security Act

The provisions relating to the interpretation of Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act shall be as follows:

Article 1 (Purpose of this Act, contained in the main sentence of this Act, is to prescribe criteria, procedures, obligations, etc. to prevent unlawful acts in airport facilities, navigation safety facilities, and aircraft and to ensure the security of civil aviation in accordance with international conventions, including the Convention on International Civil Aviation (State 16). The definitions of terms used in this Act shall be as follows: Provided, That the provisions of this Act, except as otherwise provided for in this Act, the term "in flight" means the period from the time all the doors of aircraft close after passengers board until the time all the doors of aircraft open for their disembarkation:

Notes 16) Convention on International Civil Aviation

Convention on Offenses and Other Acts Committeds Committed on Board Aircraft 17) Convention

The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft 18) Convention

The Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation 19) Convention;

3) Criteria for interpreting “aviation route” under Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act and the principle of no punishment without prison labor

A) Penal provisions shall be strictly interpreted and applied in accordance with the language and text, and they shall not be excessively expanded or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant. However, within the meaning of possible language and text, the systematic and logical interpretation that clearly expresses the logical meaning of the language and text in accordance with the legal systematic relationship that takes into account the legislative intent and purpose of the provision is for the most adjacent interpretation to the essential contents of the provision, and is in accordance with the principle of no punishment without law (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2162, Jun. 14, 2007). Unless it goes beyond the ordinary meaning of legal text, the objective interpretation that takes into account the legislative purpose, legislative history, etc. of the provision shall not be excluded (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do6525, May 12, 2006, etc.).

B) The Aviation Security Act and the Aviation Act do not have the definition of a sea route, and as seen later, a notice enacted for the enforcement of the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act does not have a definition that can be applied uniformly to the examples of “sea route” under superior laws and regulations beyond the definition applicable to the pertinent notice. The term “sea route” under the Aviation Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act are not uniform.

C) According to the evidence submitted by the defense counsel, the prior meaning of “airway (air route)” is “airway along which an aircraft passes.”

However, according to the same evidence, this is identical to the prior meaning of “airway”, and Article 2 subparag. 21 of the Aviation Act also provides a definition term “airway” with respect to “airway” as “the path in the space indicated on the earth’s surface designated by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport as suitable for aviation of aircraft.” If the legislators prescribed the aviation route from Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act to the same meaning as the service or aviation route, they would have used the term “airway” under the relevant laws.

In addition, the concept of “in flight route” includes the status of an aircraft in transit before and after the takeoff, and thus, the interpretation of “air route” as “air route” would result in reducing the scope of application of Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act notwithstanding the concept of “in flight route.”

D) Ultimately, the “aviation route” under Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act cannot be interpreted in its prior meaning, and should be interpreted within the meaning of the possible text and text, in consideration of the legislative intent and purpose, legislative history, and legal systematic relationship under Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act.

4) The definition of “air route” as the standard for establishing aviation route, and the examples and meaning of “air route” under the Aviation Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act

A) The “Standards for establishing air route (which was completely amended on April 16, 2010, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s announcement)” established by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for the specific enforcement of the Aviation Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act provides for the definition of “air route” as follows in the aviation-related statutes, administrative regulations, etc.

The purpose of this Rule is to prescribe detailed matters necessary to establish instrument flight procedures in conformity with the safe operation of aircraft in the Incheon Flight Information Zone (FIR) and international standards. The definitions of terms used in this Rule under Article 54 (Flight Rules, etc.) of the Aviation Act and Article 186 (Access to Instruments, Departure Procedures, etc.) of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act are as follows: 4. The term "flight procedure" means a series of operating methods established to ensure that aircraft can make instrument flight by securing the safety from obstacles, etc., including the following: d. Course (E-Noute): Part of the control zone or control zone established in the form of ditches, the name of navigation route, important points and distance between points, reporting requirements, the minimum safety altitude, etc. determined by the ATS institution:

In other words, Article 54 of the Aviation Act provides that "a person who intends to operate an aircraft shall fly the aircraft in accordance with the "Flight Rules" prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the flight rules include the rules on instrument flight. Article 186 of the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act provides that "instrument flight procedures" shall be established with respect to "instrument flight procedures" under the title "meter access, departure procedures, etc." In this regard, the criteria for the establishment of airspace are established for "the purpose of determining detailed matters necessary to establish instrument flight procedures meeting international standards" in relation to the above provisions. Accordingly, the definition of "aviation" in Article 4 of the above criteria is also imposed in relation to the flight procedures of instrument flight, and the scope of its definition is limited to the above criteria. In light of the elements of the definition provision, "aviation route" in the above criteria is close to "information that leads to its elements," and it cannot be seen that the above "aviation route route" is more than 20 meters higher than that of the aviation security law or the Aviation Security Act.

B) The provisions related to “aviation route” under the Aviation Act and the Enforcement Rules of the Aviation Act are as follows.

(2) The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport shall, when he/she provides certification for operation under paragraph (1) of this Article, concurrently issue the matters concerning the operation conditions and restrictions prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport with respect to the air routes, airports and aircraft maintenance methods, etc. to be operated. (1) The term "insignificant aviation safety hindrance" in Article 49-4 (1) of the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act means cases prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (hereinafter referred to as "insignificant aviation safety hindrance") means the following subparagraphs:

On the other hand, Article 115-2 (2) of the Aviation Act, and Article 280-3 (2) 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act seems to be close to the meaning of "lane" in its context.

Article 145(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act provides that “aviation route” in parallel with “high altitude.” The “high altitude” is related to a vertical space that refers to the height from the surface of the earth or water surface, and there is no need to interpret “sea route” as the same concept, and therefore, the “sea route” of the above Rule appears to mean an horizontal proceeding direction.

“Air route” in subparagraph 6 of the same paragraph is stipulated along with “airport facilities.” Since “airport facilities” includes ground transit routes, such as lamps zones at issue in this case, it appears that “air route” in subparagraph 6 of the same paragraph means the service that does not include the above airport facilities’ ground transit routes.

Article 149-2 subparagraph 8 of the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act, or Article 187-2 subparagraph 6 of the Aviation Act seems to have been used close to the concept of "information on the paths on which an aircraft moves."

As such, insofar as the concept of “aviation route” under the Aviation Act and the Enforcement Rule of the Aviation Act is difficult to be interpreted uniformly, there is no ground to view that the meaning of “air route”, which is merely one of the meaning of “aviation route, ought to be applied to Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act.

C) In light of the fact that the takeoff and landing facilities of an aircraft, such as the runway, etc., are classified into airport facilities under Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Aviation Act (Article 10 subparag. 1 (a) of the Enforcement Decree of the Aviation Act), and the Aviation Act and relevant statutes are used separately from “airport facilities” and “air route,” defense counsels claim to the effect that the movement from “off-stop facilities” included in the airport facilities is not included in “air route.” However, as seen earlier, the meaning of “air route” used in the Aviation Act and relevant statutes is not uniform, and the Aviation Act does not distinguish between “airport facilities” and “air route” from “airport facilities” under Article 2 subparag. 8 of the Aviation Act and “air route” under Article 2 subparag. 21 of the Aviation Act, in light of the fact that there is no definition provision on “air route”, it cannot be interpreted that “airport facilities” are not “air route,” but it does not constitute “airport facilities.”

5) Grounds for the enactment of the Aviation Security Act and the contents of the agreement serving as a supplementary court

A) Contents of the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act

On December 26, 1974, the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act was enacted by Law No. 2742 on December 26, 1974, 2200 hereinafter a week.

Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act provides that the concept of "in flight" is the same as that of Article 2 subparag. 1 of the current Aviation Security Act. Articles 8 through 10 of the Aviation Security Act provide for the same provision as that of Article 11 of the current Aviation Security Act, in addition to punishing the act of loading or carrying dangerous objects prohibited from loading under Article 12 of the Aviation Security Act, Article 11 of the same Act provides for the same penal provision as that of Article 42 of the aviation security Act.

The purpose of this Act, in Article 1 (Purpose) of the Table contained in the main text, is to kidnapping an aircraft in flight to threaten the safety of such aircraft and its passengers and to prevent any act detrimental to the order and discipline in the aircraft (main 23) which may endanger or threaten property and things in the aircraft, and to prevent any act detrimental to the order and discipline in the aircraft. The definitions of the terms used in this Act are as follows:

Note 23) Action

B) the ASEAN Convention

Article 3(1)1 of the Aviation Security Act provides that the scope of the application and the illegal possession of an aircraft shall be limited to the following provisions, and there is no provision on the type of crimes subject to the prohibition.

Section 1.1 of the table No. 1 Convention contained in the text of this Convention shall apply to the following matters: (a) a person who violates the criminal law of the Republic of Korea; (b) a person who may endanger or endanger the safety of, or threatens the order and regulation in, an aircraft and its life and property in the aircraft, regardless of the composition of a crime, in violation of the criminal law; (c) an aircraft shall be deemed to have been in flight during navigation from the moment when it was in operation for the purpose of takeoff to the moment when the landing activation ends; and (d) an illegal possession of an aircraft, in Chapter 4, Section 11.1.1.

(C)the Hague Convention;

The Hague Convention, which is stipulated as a supplementary court in Article 3 (1) 2 of the current Aviation Security Act, was concluded for the purpose of preventing the illegal hijacking and occupation of aircraft during navigation, and the following provisions are related to the crime and the scope of the application.

Any person who boards an aircraft in operation under section 1 of the table contained in the main text shall be deemed to have committed an offence in the event that (a) illegally captures, occupies or removes, or attempts to commit such an act by violence or threat or by any other form of intimidation, or (b) is an accomplice of a person who commits or attempts to commit such an act. For the purpose of this Convention, an aircraft shall be deemed to have committed an offence. For the purpose of this Convention, an aircraft shall be deemed to have been in operation during any time from the moment all outside doors open after boarding to the moment when such words open (hereinafter referred to as “infright”).

(d) Montreal Convention;

Article 3 (1) 3 of the current Aviation Security Act provides that the Montreal Convention aims to establish a penal provision for the prevention of illegal acts against civil aviation in addition to aircraft hijacking and occupation, and the types and scope of illegal acts are as follows.

In the case where a person has committed an act of violence against a passenger on board an aircraft, which is one of the navigational vessels, and where such act is likely to cause danger and harm to the safety of the aircraft, the person in question is deemed to have committed the crime. For the purpose of this Convention, Article 2, the first aircraft shall be deemed to have been in operation during any time between the moment when all outside doors close after boarding to the moment when such doors are opened (hereinafter omitted) for the purpose of this Convention.

E) The Act on the Punishment of Duplication of Aircraft in Japan

After the establishment of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention, Japan enacted the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Duplicating Aircraft on May 18, 1970, before the establishment of the Hague Convention and the Montreal Convention. Article 4 of the above Act uses the term “in flight” and “in flight route” as an example of the act of changing the course to a normal operation, its contents are almost the same as Article 11 of the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act of Korea, and other penal provisions on aircraft lectures are similar in the form of the act of establishing the elements, statutory penalty, and order of regulations.

A person who alters the course of an aircraft in navigation by deceptive means or by force under Article 4 of the table contained in the main sentence or by force shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than ten years.

F) The meaning of “aviation route” under Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act as examined in light of the legislative history of Article 11 of the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act

(1) As seen earlier, the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act was enacted by referring to the Act on the Demotion, etc. of Japan, which first enacted the same Convention as the implementation legislation of the ASEAN Convention, and during that process, Article 4 of the said Act appears to be reflected in Article 11 of the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act as it is almost rare.

Article 4 of the above Japanese law and Article 11 of the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act are different in terms of the following acts: (a) “in flight route” is changed to “in flight route”; (b) “in flight route” is changed to “in flight route”; and (c) “in flight route change” is prescribed in Article 4 of the same Act as an example of an act impeding normal navigation, Article 11 of the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act.

(2) The term “airway” refers to the word “in the direction that the bale refers to,” or “in the direction that the bale moves to,” and it is entirely different from, “air route” or “air route.” Article 2 Subparag. 16 of the Japanese Aviation Act defines the definition of “instrument flight” as “aviation depending on the attitude, altitude, location, and course measuring instruments.” Article 2 Subparag. 24 of the Korean Aviation Act defines “instrument flight” as “aviation based only on the measuring instruments installed on the aircraft’s attitude, altitude, location, and flight direction.” In this regard, the term “air route” is also irrelevant to the concept of “air route” or “air route” used in the aforementioned definition provision.

(3) With respect to the difference between “underway” and “in flight”, the Act on the Punishment, etc. of the Duplicing of Aircraft in Japan is an implementation legislation of the ASEAN Convention, and the meaning of “in flight” is the same as the concept “in flight” under Article 1(3) of the ASEAN Convention, and stipulates that “from the time of the engine operation to the time of the landing to the time of the termination of the activation to land” (Evidence 19). This includes a situation in which “from the time of the engine operation to the time of the landing to the time immediately before the departure to the time of the landing” (Article 24).

Since the enactment time of the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act in Korea, the concept of “in flight” in consideration of the Hague Convention, the Montreal Convention, and the purpose of the Montreal Convention has been expanded rather than those provided for in the Hague Convention, the Montreal Convention, and the said Japanese law.

(4) In addition, Article 4 of the above Japanese law seems to reflect "the act of impeding the normal operation of an aircraft by a person on board" in the context of "the act of obstructing the operation of an aircraft in flight by violence or intimidation or other act of unfairly exercising the operation of an aircraft" under Article 11 (1) of the ASEAN Convention. It should be understood in the context of "the act of obstructing the normal operation of an aircraft in flight" as an example of "the act of impeding the normal operation of an aircraft" under Article 4 of the above Convention.

(5) 결국 일본의 항공기의강취등의처벌에관한법률 제4조 위반죄의 ‘항행중인 항공기의 침로를 변경시키는 행위’는, ‘항공기가 이륙을 위하여 엔진을 시동한 때부터 착륙을 위한 활주를 종료한 때까지’ 그 ‘진행방향’을 변경하게 한 행위를 의미하며 ‘항행중인 항공기의 조종을 부당하게 행사하는 행위 일체’를 처벌하기 위한 것으로, 위 제4조에 의하면 ‘이륙을 위하여 엔진을 켠 후 활주를 마침으로써 이륙하기 전까지 지상이동 중인 항공기의 진행방향’을 변경하게 한 경우 위 법에 의해 처벌된다.

Therefore, Article 11 of the Korean Aircraft Navigation Safety Act, which reflects Article 4 of the Japanese Act on the Punishment, etc. of Duplication of Aircraft, can be interpreted as the same meaning. This also applies to the case where the concept of "in flight" under the Korean Aircraft Navigation Safety Act is wider than the concept of "in flight" under the Japanese law, and the scope of ground movement of aircraft included in the above act is widened.

In other words, in light of the legislative history and complementary legal causes of this aviation security law, the Hague Convention, and the Montreal Convention, “air route” under Article 11 of the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act and Article 42 of the current Aviation Security Act, which maintain it as they are, should be interpreted as meaning “ongoing route” or “ongoing direction” where an aircraft operates, and it cannot be interpreted as meaning “air route” excluding ground transport routes.

(vi)the objectives of the Aviation Security Act, the Hague Convention, and the Montreal Convention;

From the ASEAN Convention, the Montreal Convention and the Montreal Convention are aimed at punishing and preventing illegal acts against civil aircraft, expanding the scope of aircraft subject to protection (hereinafter referred to as the "Convention") and expanding the types of crimes subject to regulation to all violent acts against passengers who are likely to pose a risk to the safety of aircraft in illegal occupation and hijacking of aircraft (the "The Hague Convention").

앞서 본 바와 같이, 1963년 채택된 도쿄 협약은 보호대상인 항공기 범위를 '이륙을 위하여 시동을 켠 때부터 착륙 활주가 끝난 때까지'라고 정하였는데, 이후 채택된 헤이그 협약, 몬트리올 협약은 보호대상인 항공기의 범위를 ‘승객이 탑승한 후 항공기의 모든 문이 닫힌 때부터 하기를 위해 문을 열 때까지’로 확대하였고, 우리 항공보안법은 국제협약에 따라 공항시설, 항행안전시설 및 항공기 내에서의 불법행위를 방지하고 민간항공의 보안을 확보한다는 목적( 제1조 )하에 헤이그 협약, 몬트리올 협약상의 ‘운항중’ 개념을 따른 것이다.

Considering such legislative intent, the interpretation of Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act’s “aviation route” as “air route” would rather unreasonably reduce the scope of application of the penal provisions intended under each of the above treaties and the relevant laws, taking into account the fact that a change in the sea route by force under Article 42 of the Montreal Convention may constitute “act of violence against passengers who are likely to endanger the safety of aircraft.”

When submitting the minutes of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee (As of November 26, 1974) in the process of the enactment of the Aviation Security Act as evidence, a defense counsel asserts that the purpose of the said Act is to prevent acts of terrorism with the lack of any police force on the ground, such as air hijacking, and that if an aircraft is on the ground, it is possible to mobilize police force on the ground to prevent criminal acts against an aircraft. Thus, the above Act does not aim to seriously punish an aircraft moving on the ground.

However, the contents of the meeting minutes of the Legislation and Judiciary Committee presented by the defense counsel provide for internal crimes until the aircraft closes the door and open the door after the opening of the door.In regard to the question of how to punish the aircraft that threatens passengers before leaving the airfield, the expert advisor responded to the question of "I think that it is a crime that should be controlled by police officers on the ground", and the summary of the conversation seems to be the question and answer about the punishment of crimes outside the aircraft with emphasis on the internal crime, and the above members are rather believed to have been in need of punishment as an "crime before leaving the airfield."

7) Sub-determination

In full view of the circumstances examined above, it is reasonable to interpret Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act not only as well as the service route, but also as the situation where an aircraft in flight moves on the ground before and after the takeoff. Such an interpretation is an extended interpretation or analogical interpretation contrary to the principle of no punishment without law.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion against this is without merit.

B. Determination as to the assertion that it does not fall under “a change” in Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act

1) Summary of the assertion

Since the aircraft of this case was cut down about about 17 meters from fire and returned to the starting point, it did not take off normally after leaving the aircraft, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the sea route of this case has been changed.

2) Determination

The aircraft of this case started, stopped and re-exploited Non-Indicted 3 for the starting of the departure, and re-exploited after the departure. It is reasonable to view that the aircraft re-exploited to the starting point with the permission of the intern and the storer out of the original scheduled route or the moving direction after departure constitutes the alteration of the sea route.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion is without merit.

C. Determination as to the assertion that it cannot be viewed as a change in the sea route by “defensive force”

1) Summary of the assertion

Nonindicted 4’s prosecutor’s statement that Nonindicted 1 reported the situation that Nonindicted 4 was able to take a bath and to take dysium from Nonindicted 4 during the period from the time Nonindicted 4 stopped and the time Nonindicted 4 was syke, cannot be deemed to have been a direct exercise of power against Nonindicted 4, and it cannot be deemed that Nonindicted 3’s exercise of power against Nonindicted 4 was an exercise of power against Nonindicted 4. Thus, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1’s intent with authority over the operation of an aircraft was forced by force and the alteration of the sea route was made because the captain’s intent with authority over the operation of the aircraft was forced.

2) Determination

A) According to the evidence revealed above, when Defendant 1 arrives at the JFK port at least on board the aircraft of this case, Nonindicted 4 briefly reported that Defendant 1 would have been on board the aircraft of this case (Evidence 1, 106, 115, 98 pages), and ② Nonindicted 3’s prosecutor’s statement that Nonindicted 3 would have asked Nonindicted 4 to stop the flight of the aircraft of this case, it would be the same as Defendant 1, and it would have to return the aircraft due to the current abnormal situation. Nonindicted 2A was sent to Defendant 1 pursuant to the 2A seat, and Nonindicted 2A was sent to the aircraft of this case, and the captain stated that “Defendant 1 would not have been on board the aircraft of this case to the extent that it would have been confirmed that the captain would have been on board the aircraft of this case to the extent that he would have been on board the aircraft of this case and that the vice president would not have to know that it would have been on the ground that he would have been on board the aircraft of this case.”

According to the above facts, Defendant 1, the vice president of Nonindicted Company 4, who was the vice president of Nonindicted Company 1, had been aware of Nonindicted Party 2’s desire within the above aircraft, had been able to see that Nonindicted Party 1 had been forced to 5, and had been able to see that Nonindicted Party 2 had been able to see that it was against Nonindicted Party 3’s above statement during the investigation process, and that Nonindicted Party 3 had been able to see that it was difficult for Nonindicted Party 4 to take responsibility again from Nonindicted Party 3, and that it was difficult for Nonindicted Party 2 to take advantage of Nonindicted Party 4’s reasoning that it was difficult for Nonindicted Party 1 to take charge of the flight of Nonindicted Party 4, who was Nonindicted Party 5 to take advantage of the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 had been 6’s passport, and that it was difficult for Nonindicted Party 2 to take out the flight instruction within 9’s passport (this case’s record No. 1, 260 pages) and that it was difficult for Defendant 1 to take account of the foregoing evidence.

B) Even if Nonindicted 4 did not know about Defendant 1’s verbal abuse, assault, or disturbance before determining the Liventon, Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act merely provides for the case where “a person interferes with normal navigation of an aircraft in flight by causing the alteration of the route of the aircraft in flight by deceptive scheme or by force” as a constituent element, and it does not seem that Nonindicted 4 limit the other party who exercised the power to the captain having the authority to decide on the alteration of the route.

In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, i.e., (i) the captain general at the time of operating the aircraft of this case delegated the head of the office for the passenger room service, not the part related to safety and security, and (ii) Nonindicted 3’s voice at the time of receiving a call from Nonindicted 3 to the effect that the crew should get out of the aircraft (Evidence No. 1: 119, 120 pages), and (iii) Nonindicted 4’s voice at the time of obtaining a call from Nonindicted 3 (Evidence No. 1: 260, 262 pages), the captain boarding the aircraft of this case and four vice-heads were unable to check the situation of the passenger room directly in the steering seat, and they stated to the effect that the captain was bound to believe and decide the head of the office (Evidence No. 2: 1167, 1168 pages), and Nonindicted 6 also stated that the captain’s name or CCTV’s reliance on the situation of the passenger room need to be reported (Evidence No. 24).

In full view of the following facts: (a) the relationship between Defendant 1, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 4; (b) the place and developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant aircraft; and (c) the place in which Defendant 1’s use of force was closed and was in front of the take-off, and the plane captain was in a situation in which it is impossible for the plane captain to directly confirm his power; (b) Defendant 1 specifically demanded Nonindicted 3 to contact the plane captain with the plane captain by verbal abuse; and (c) Nonindicted 4, even if the plane captain directly confirmed his power, such as Defendant 1’s assault, verbal abuse, etc. against Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 2, could have known the Defendant 1’s demand without excluding his power; and (d) the exercise of Nonindicted 4’s free will directly occurred by exercising his power against Nonindicted 3; and thus, (c) the exercise of power against Nonindicted 3 is the same as the exercise of power against Nonindicted 4.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion is without merit.

D. Determination as to the assertion that there was no intention to alter the sea route

1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant 1 did not recognize that the aircraft of this case was a food bags, but did not recognize that it was necessary for the crew to do so, so there was no intention of changing the sea route.

2) Determination

앞서 거시한 증거들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 승객들이 탑승하고 문이 닫히면 좌석마다 설치된 좌석벨트등이 켜져 승객들에게 좌석벨트 착용이 안내되고, 사무장이 객실 상황을 점검해서 푸시백 준비가 완료되었다고 보고해야 기장이 푸시백을 시작할 수 있는바(증거기록 1권 238쪽, 2권 796쪽, 4권 2174, 2653쪽), 피고인 1이 매뉴얼을 가져오라고 지시한 때는 공소외 3이 푸시백 준비완료 보고를 마치고 안내영상을 준비하고 있을 때였으므로, 피고인 1은 공소외 1 회사의 부사장으로서 좌석벨트등이나 안내방송 등을 통해 항공기가 출발할 준비를 마쳤음을 알고 있었을 것으로 보이는 점, ② 피고인 1은 푸시백이 시작되는 것을 감지한 공소외 3으로부터 ‘비행기가 이미 활주로에 들어서기 시작했다’, 즉 비행기가 이미 출발했다는 취지의 말을 들었음에도 항공기를 세우라고 지시한 점(증인 공소외 3의 법정진술, 증거기록 2권 1125쪽), ③ 공소외 2는 피고인 1이 내리라고 고함치며 밀쳐서 L1칸까지 가게 되었을 때, 내려야 하나 하는 생각에 창밖을 보았는데 탑승교가 항공기에서 떨어져 있었고, 항공기가 움직이고 있었으며, 당시는 이륙 전이어서 모든 창문이 열린 상태였고, 공소외 2는 L1에서 창을 등지고 있고 피고인 1은 공소외 2를 손으로 밀면서 마주보고 있어, 피고인 1은 공소외 2보다 창밖을 더 잘 볼 수 있는 위치였다고 진술한 점(증인 공소외 2의 법정진술, 증거기록 4권 2651, 2652쪽), ④ 이상과 같이 공소외 2는 피고인 1이 내리라고 했을 때 이미 이 사건 항공기가 푸시백을 시작한 것을 알고 있었고(증거기록 1권 283쪽), 당시 1등석에 탑승하였던 공소외 10도, 피고인 1이 사무장 등에게 내리라고 하는 것을 듣고, ‘자동차도 아니고 비행기가 출발한 상태에서 어떻게 내릴 수 있나’하고 생각하고 있었는데, 갑자기 탑승교에 다시 비행기를 가져다 대는 것을 보고 깜짝 놀랐다고 진술하고 있고(증거기록 1권 573쪽), 이 사건 당시 공소외 10은 친구에게 ‘헐 진짜 내리나봐’라는 문자메시지를 보내고, 이어 ‘다시 붙이고 있어’라는 문자메시지를 보냈는바(증거기록 1권 600쪽), 공소외 10 또한 이 사건 항공기가 출발을 위해 푸시백을 시작했다가 다시 탑승교로 돌아간 사정을 알았던 것으로 보이며, 공소외 9 또한 토잉카로 항공기가 이동하는 경우 관성의 법칙 때문에 승객들이 항공기가 움직이는 것을 알게 되고, 후진하는 경우 더 확실히 알 수 있다고 진술하는 점(증거기록 4권 2125쪽), ⑤ 당시 피고인 1로부터 직접적으로 폭행, 폭언을 당하며 가장 가까이에 있던 공소외 2는 피고인 1이 “내려”라고 소리칠 무렵에 항공기가 이동하는 것을 알고 있었다고 진술한 점(증거기록 4권 2653쪽) 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 1은 공소외 2에게 하기할 것을 요구할 당시 이 사건 항공기가 푸시백 이동을 시작하였다는 것을 인식하였던 것으로 보인다.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination on the assertion on the violation of the Aviation Security Act due to the assault that impedes the safe flight of aircraft

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Articles 50(2)3 and 23(1)1 of the Aviation Security Act punishs passengers as a fine not exceeding five million won for an act of disturbance, such as abusive language, loud singing, etc., and even after Nonindicted 3 took action, it cannot be deemed that the assault committed against Defendant 1, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 2 led to the extent that it undermines the security or operation of an aircraft to the extent that it would be considerable to the danger of “the operation of the aircraft” to the extent that the assault committed against Defendant 1, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 2 was detrimental to the security or operation of the aircraft.

2) Defendant 1 had no intention to commit a crime that would impair the security and operation of aircraft.

B. Determination

1) Article 23(2) of the Aviation Security Act provides that “A passenger shall not commit violence, intimidation, or deceptive act that obstructs the security or flight of an aircraft, or manipulate the entrance, escape exit, or device.” Thus, it is reasonable to deem that a passenger does not constitute a constituent element for the purpose of hindering the security or flight of an aircraft, or interfering with the security or flight of an aircraft.

2) According to the above evidence, cabin crew (Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Aviation Act), as crew members engaged in business related to the safety of passengers in the aircraft (Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Aviation Act), inspection and fixing of fuel materials in the passenger room before take off the aircraft, keeping and locking things to prevent the fall of things stored in the passenger room, checking passengers' seat labels, checking whether passengers are in the toilet, checking their windows, checking their windows, checking the condition of gallons, checking the restrictions on use of electronic devices, etc., and conducting considerable safety services, such as viewing of guide pictures during the safety inspection and checking the result of the safety inspection of the crew again (Article 7 of the Aviation Act). If Non-Indicted. 1 did not know of the facts charged by Defendant 1, Non-Indicted. 2 of the Aircraft, Non-Indicted. 3 of the Aircraft at the time of taking off and leaving the aircraft again, and Non-Indicted. 3 of the Aircraft’s way to find out the collision between the Defendant 1 and Non-Indicted. 5 of the Aircraft 1’s way to take off the aircraft (this case).

In full view of the above facts, Defendant 1’s act of assault against crew members, such as the above facts constituting an offense No. 2, which prevents crew members from performing safety services for take-off, which resulted in the collision with other aircraft by stopping an aircraft in the process of a food whitening, which led to the danger of collision with other aircraft, and eventually, Defendant 1 opened an entrance to the aircraft, which led to the obstruction of security and flight of the aircraft. In light of the fact that the exercise of force is accompanied by the exercise of force and the degree of the risks caused, it is not deemed that the above act can be included in simple disturbance, such as verbal abuse by passengers, loud singing, etc. as provided in Article 23(1)1 of the Aviation Security Act.

In addition, even after Defendant 1 had Defendant 1 perform his office work, the fact that the minimum number of crew members was met or that Nonindicted 6, who is qualified as office chief and security personnel, remains, may be the reason for sentencing. However, it may not affect the nature of Defendant 1’s violation of the Aviation Security Act due to the obstruction of the safe flight of aircraft by Defendant 1, who already reached the number of the term of office.

3) The defendant 1 seems to have been aware of most of the facts acknowledged in the above 2 paragraph at the time of committing the act of assault under Paragraph 2 of the facts stated in the judgment. Thus, the above defendant had the intent to commit the act of assault that is likely to obstruct the security and flight of aircraft.

C. Sub-decision

Ultimately, Defendant 1’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on the argument on the crime of interference with business

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Defendant 1 was the vice president in charge of the guest room service at the time of the instant case, and Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2 were the vice vice president in charge of the cabin crew. Defendant 1 had the authority to exclude or adjust the employees from the business at any time, and thus, Defendant 1 cannot be said to have interfered with Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2’s business.

2) Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2’s duties interfered with the instant case fall under the scope of Defendant 1’s business, and Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2 have a duty to obey the instructions of Defendant 1, a commercial person, in the course of business. Thus, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1’s act interfered with the independent business of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2.

3) Defendant 1’s liability for Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2 is an act that is within the scope of the business judgment and that does not go against the social norms.

4) Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have exercised a direct power against Nonindicted 4 by the captain, and Nonindicted 4 cannot be deemed to have obstructed Nonindicted 4’s business since the chief secretary, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 2, etc. knew that he was subject to assault and intimidation.

B. Determination

1) Determination as to the allegations in paragraphs (1) and (2) above

Article 50 (1) of the Aviation Act provides that the captain responsible for the flight safety of an aircraft shall direct and supervise the crew of the aircraft, and Article 2 (5) of the Aviation Act provides that the captain means the crew who perform safety duties such as emergency escape from the aircraft on board the aircraft.

Although Defendant 1, as the vice president of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2, and the vice president of Nonindicted Company 1, as the vice president for the guest room service of Nonindicted Company 1, has the authority to exclude and coordinate the affairs of crew members including Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2, he shall be exercised in accordance with the procedure set before he gets on the aircraft. Defendant 1 was on board the aircraft of this case, and Defendant 1 was merely on board the aircraft of this case, and the plane captain was not on board the aircraft of this case. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the vice president can exercise the authority to direct and supervise the plane captain’s crew members on board the aircraft of this case as prescribed by the Act for the purpose of flight.

2) Determination as to the assertion under the above-mentioned A-3

"Acts which do not violate social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to acts which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms in its hinterland. Whether certain acts constitute legitimate acts that do not violate social norms and thus, the illegality of such acts is excluded should be determined individually and reasonably under specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate acts, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the protected interests and the infringed interests; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do699, Oct. 23, 2008).

Even if Defendant 1, as the vice president of the guest room service overall, had the purpose of pointing out the error of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2’s violation of the manuals, and failure to know about the manual, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1’s act of assaulting Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2 on the starting aircraft, obscing Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2, humpinging them into a high level of desire, verbal abuse, and getting them out of an acutely visible aircraft, and maintaining the reasonableness of the means and method, balance of legal interests, urgency, and supplement, etc.

3) Determination as to the assertion under the above A-4

A) Relevant legal principles

The crime of interference with business ought to be exercised in principle against the victim. Thus, if a third party who is not the other party to the crime of interference with business is not the victim, the possibility of suppressing the victim’s free will is directly generated, and thus, the crime of interference with business cannot be deemed established unless there are special circumstances deemed to be identical to the exercise of the victim’s free will. In such a case, whether there is a possibility of direct restraint of the victim’s free will by exercising force against a third party ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the intent and purpose of the exercise of force, the relationship between the third party, the other party to the exercise of force, the place and method, etc. of the exercise of force, the victim’s awareness of the exercise of force against the third party, the degree of disadvantage or damage suffered by the victim by exercising the victim’s free will, the exclusion of force by the victim, and the possibility of protecting the third party (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do410 Decided March 14, 2013).

B) Determination

As seen above 1-C. 2. A, Defendant 1 may be deemed to have exercised his direct power against Nonindicted 4, and even if it is different from the domestic affairs, Defendant 1’s exercise of power against Nonindicted 3 can be deemed to have practically the same as the exercise of power against Nonindicted 4.

C. Sub-decision

Ultimately, Defendant 1’s argument on the crime of interference with business is without merit.

4. Judgment on the assertion on the crime of coercion

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 1 is the vice president in charge of the management of guest room services and has the authority to decide on the placement of crew members and personnel affairs, and Nonindicted 3 is obligated to comply with this, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have had Defendant 1 engaged Nonindicted 3 to do any non-obligatory act. In addition, Nonindicted 3 did not perform any non-obligatory act in consultation with the captain Nonindicted 4, and thus, it cannot be deemed that he did not perform any non-obligatory act.

B. Determination

As seen earlier, the Aviation Act provides that the captain shall have the right to direct and supervise the crew of the aircraft to command and supervise the crew of the aircraft, and Defendant 1 only boarded the aircraft in the instant case, and even if Defendant 1 ordered Nonindicted 3 as vice president on the aircraft, Nonindicted 3 does not have the duty to follow the above order of Defendant 1, not the captain,. According to the above facts, the situation where the operation was obstructed by Defendant 1’s unilateral instruction can be acknowledged, and it cannot be deemed that Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 4 were in consultation with the captain.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s above assertion is without merit.

1. Determination as to Defendant 2’s assertion on each crime of coercion on December 6, 2014 and December 8, 2014

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 2, by intimidation Nonindicted 3, had Nonindicted 3 prepare an explanatory note and a horse statement on December 6, 2014, or had Nonindicted 3 make a false statement at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport investigation on December 8, 2014, and did not have to submit a false statement. Defendant 2 only made a statement and made a false statement in order to minimize the disciplinary action against Nonindicted 3, etc. and to smoothly control the situation.

B. Determination

1) Comprehensively taking account of the above evidence, Nonindicted Party 3 arrived at the Incheon State Port on December 6, 2014, which was 16:30, and Defendant 2 instructed Nonindicted Party 14, etc. to leave the office at around 19:40, and Defendant 2 instructed Nonindicted Party 3 to prepare a revised statement to the effect that “I would not know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would not have been able to know that I would like to know that I would like to know, I would like to say, and that I would not know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would not have to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know, I would like to know that I would not have to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would not know that I would like to know it.

2) Further to the facts of the facts stated in the above facts charged, i.e., ① Nonindicted 3 was unable to make repeated correction requests on December 6, 2014 immediately after returning to the Republic of Korea with a extreme mental or physical disorder, and appears to have been made out a statement contrary to his own idea and a statement of vision. ② At the time, Nonindicted 3 was made verbal abuse, assault, etc. beyond the extent of Defendant 1, who was the vice president of Nonindicted Company 1, and continued to talk with Defendant 2. Accordingly, it appears to have been aware that the company had no choice but to be subject to reprimand in the process of communicating with Defendant 2. ③ Defendant 2 had Nonindicted 3, who was in the same situation as above, prepared a statement of reason for the disciplinary action to the extent that it did not comply with his intention, and prepared a statement of reason for the disciplinary action to the extent that it would have been unfavorable at the time of Nonindicted 3’s preparation of the statement of reason for the disciplinary action to the extent that it would have been unfavorable to him at the time of his arrival.

3) In addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the facts constituting the above facts of the crime and the circumstances as seen earlier, namely, ① Nonindicted 3 was suffering from serious external appearance on December 6, 2014, such as intimidation. On December 8, 2014, it appears that it would have become a cause provider of the above situation as of December 8, 2014, and ② Defendant 2 made a false statement to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on December 8, 2014, on the purport that Nonindicted 3 would not have any doubt about the fairness of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s supervisory officer, and that Nonindicted 3 would not have any doubt about Nonindicted 3’s disclosure of the status before and after the investigation by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and would not have any doubt about the fact that Nonindicted 3 would not have been able to make a false statement, such as Nonindicted 3’s reply to Nonindicted 11 to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s allegation that it would not have been able to present any disadvantage to the said Defendant 2’s reply.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, this part of the defendant 2's assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to Defendant 2’s assertion of the crime of destroying evidence and of aiding and abetting evidence concealment

A. Summary of the assertion

1) Since Nonindicted 15, etc., the other party to whom Defendant 2 instigated the destruction of evidence or concealment of evidence, did not have the intent to commit the destruction of evidence and concealment of evidence, the crime of aiding and abetting Defendant 2 cannot be established against Defendant 2.

2) The computer file that Defendant 2 had to delete did not decrease the value of evidence because it remains in the computer server or other computers of Nonindicted Company 1’s computer center, and all of the computers that had to be replaced had to remain in the office of Nonindicted Company 1, the place of search and seizure, so it cannot be said that the evidence was concealed.

B. Determination

1) We examine the following circumstances, namely, ① Nonindicted 15, and Nonindicted 14, etc., known from around December 6, 2014 that Defendant 2 had been forced to make a false statement from around the point of view that Defendant 2 had been subject to the prosecution’s search and seizure, ② Nonindicted 15, who was ordered by the prosecutor’s office to delete relevant materials and to take instructions from the prosecutor’s office, and employees who were sent the above instructions from around December 8, 2014, were investigated by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in relation to the instant malton situation through press reports, etc., and were likely to have been subject to criminal punishment depending on the results. ③ In light of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 15 and the employees were aware of the search and seizure of the instant malton situation through Defendant 2’s instructions and in preparation for the destruction of evidence in preparation for the concealment of evidence, etc., Defendant 15 or Defendant 2’s criminal case.

Therefore, Defendant 2’s above-mentioned A-1) argument is without merit.

2) The evidence has an important meaning in relation to the determination of the credibility and value of evidence in question as well as its contents, and at the same time, it can be a single evidence. Therefore, the evidence that Defendant 2 prevented the destruction of evidence remains in the Nonindicted Company 1’s server or another computer may not be said to have not reduced the value of evidence. Furthermore, the crime of destruction of evidence includes an abstract dangerous offender, and any act that causes the destruction or decrease of its effect as well as the obstruction of the withdrawal of evidence (Supreme Court Decision 4294No347 delivered on October 19, 1961). As long as the team leader and employees deleted computer files, etc., which are evidence and concealed computers, Defendant 2’s crime of destruction of evidence, and the victim’s computer files, etc. were recovered or concealed by a subsequent investigation agency, it cannot affect any crime that has already been established.

Therefore, Defendant 2’s above-mentioned A-2) argument is without merit.

1. Judgment on the assertion that the prosecution of this case violated the principle of an indictment only

A. Summary of the assertion

Of the facts charged against Defendant 3, Article 2(c) of the indictment of this case is irrelevant or inaccurate to the motive and circumstance of the facts charged, and thus, it makes it unclear the scope of defense of Defendant by forming an unfair prejudice to the court and constituting an independent crime. The prosecution of this case is invalid in violation of the principle of an indictment only.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

The principle of an indictment only shall, in principle, be submitted when a prosecutor institutes a public prosecution, and it shall not be attached or quoted to the documents or other things that may cause the court to make a prejudice on the case (Article 118(2) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure). The so-called “Prohibition of entry of other facts” is included in the contents of the principle of an indictment only (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Do3145, Mar. 11, 1994; 2009Do7436, Oct. 22, 2009, etc.).

2) Determination

The facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 3 are prone, and Article 2-(c) thereof states the situation after the completion of the crime on December 9, 2014.

However, according to the progress of the case, it seems to have been intended to clarify the motive and process of the case and to reveal the circumstances leading to the charged facts, and to clarify the criminal facts that are the object of prosecution under paragraph (3) of the facts charged against Defendant 3, so long as it is specified, it cannot be said that the scope of defense is unclear, and it is not recognized that there is a risk of causing the court’s prejudice. Accordingly, the method of instituting prosecution is against the principle of an indictment only because it stated such facts, and it cannot be deemed unlawful.

Therefore, Defendant 3’s above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to the assertion that the contents disclosed by Defendant 3 in the facts charged of the instant case do not constitute secrets

A. Summary of the assertion

On December 8, 2014 and December 9, 2014, indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, each leakage is likely to be deemed to have been publicly announced through the media and to have a practical protection value. Moreover, the content of the divulgence as of December 8, 2014 does not coincide with the content of the report prepared on the same day, and thus, it cannot be deemed to constitute a secret of the crime of divulgence of official duties.

B. Legal doctrine on secrets in the line of duty

Article 127 of the Criminal Act provides that a person who is or was a public official shall divulge a secret in the course of performing his/her duties under the Acts and subordinate statutes. Here, the term “official secrets pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes” does not necessarily include the matters specified as secret or classified as secret pursuant to the Acts and subordinate statutes, but includes matters of considerable benefits that the Government, a public office, or a citizen may not be disclosed from an objective and general point of view. However, it should be recognized that it is worth protecting the secret in substance. Meanwhile, the crime of disclosure of official duties is not to protect the secret itself, but to protect the benefits of a public official’s violation of the duty of confidentiality, i.e., protecting the function of the State threatened by the leakage of secret (see Supreme Court Decisions 201Do1343, Jun. 13, 2003; 2010Do14734, Mar. 15, 2012, etc.).

C. Determination

1) Of the confidential information disclosed by Defendant 3 as indicated in the facts charged of this case, the part acknowledged in Article 4-B of the facts charged is about the investigation results conducted by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport supervisors and the contents of the report to be submitted to the upper department.

2) Unlike the part of “the future investigation plan by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport against passengers or Defendant 1,” which found Defendant 3 not guilty, the above content is not the information disclosed by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport until each leakage, and Defendant 3 was in a position to directly investigate Defendant 1’s distress and to hear the opinions of the supervising officials, and thus, Defendant 3’s information provided by Defendant 3 is entirely different from the media’s abstract report from its quality and credibility. In light of the above, it is recognized that the above content is not a publicly notified fact.

3) In addition, even though the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport supervisor in charge of investigating the facts of this case did not have the authority to directly decide on specific dispositions against Defendant 1 or Nonindicted Company 1, any report containing the above supervisory officer’s results and opinions is the basis for determining the disposition authority. Therefore, if the above information is leaked to Defendant 2 and other Nonindicted Company 1, etc., Defendant 2, etc., may manipulate evidence in accordance with the contents of the information, destroy materials not yet secured by the supervisory officer, prepare false statements, etc., and ultimately interfere with the disposition of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport by affecting the inspection, questioning, etc. of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and ultimately interfere with the disposition of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the above case constitutes an internal secret of the State agency that may not be disclosed to the outside, until the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport makes a final decision or the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure

4) According to Non-Indicted 1 Company KE086 A380 reported by Non-Indicted 8 (Evidence No. 5 2 pages), the above report prepared on December 8, 2014 does not contain any content related to Defendant 1’s verbal abuse, abusive language, assault, etc. (the same date report prepared by the Aviation Security Act includes the statement that Defendant 1 “the same date report as the aviation security” was written by Defendant 1), and the statement that “the head of the office must be responsible for his/her duties as he/she mentioned in the need to replace his/her duties,” but it can be recognized that the above report contains the statement that “the captain reported the captain that he/she would be responsible for his/her duties, and the captain accepted it.” This seems to have the same content as the disclosed content by Defendant 3, which was acknowledged earlier, except for detailed differences of expression.

Therefore, Defendant 3’s above assertion is without merit.

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means against Defendants 1 and 2

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

When Defendant 1’s investigation was initiated by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport around December 5, 2014 with respect to Defendant 1’s violation of the Aviation Security Act on or around December 8, 2014, Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 conspired with the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on or around December 8, 2014, to have the head and crew members make a false statement or prepare a false statement in the process of the investigation; ② Defendant 2 had Nonindicted 3 submit a written confirmation to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport investigator as he prepared by Nonindicted 3; ③ prepare measures to take measures to relieve the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s investigation details and plans; ④ endeavor to prevent Nonindicted 10 from making a statement at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or the press; ⑤ interfere with the performance of their duties regarding the investigation by deceptive means by having the said Defendants attend the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport

B. Criteria for determination

1) Relevant precedents

In a case where an investigative agency investigates a criminal case, even if a suspect or a reference witness states a false fact to an investigative agency or submits a false evidence, if the investigative agency without making a sufficient investigation and concluded a wrong conclusion only with such false statement and evidence, this cannot be deemed as a result of an insufficient investigation conducted by the investigative agency, and thus, the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties is not established by fraudulent means. However, if the suspect or reference witness actively submitted a false evidence and the investigative agency made a false conclusion because the evidence submitted was not found to be false, even if the investigation agency had faithfully conducted a false investigation as a result of the manipulation of evidence, which led to the degree that the evidence submitted was not found to be false, this constitutes a crime of obstruction of official duties by fraudulent means (see Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do6101, Oct. 11, 2007; 2003Do1609, Jul. 25, 2003).

2) Specific criteria for determination in the instant case

In the facts charged of this case, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s duty of investigation that interfered with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2’s deceptive scheme is different from the review of applications filed by administrative agencies ordinarily, ordinarily, and repeatedly, and the control and surveillance of the violation of the prohibition regulations.

In other words, an investigation conducted on Defendant 1's act, such as facts constituting a crime in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, is to identify the occurrence of a specific case and to impose sanctions or to determine whether to file a criminal complaint with an investigation agency by identifying the authenticity and facts of the case. ② Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, etc. are to make a false statement in order to be exempted or exempted from an administrative disposition, criminal complaint, or to have a person subject to investigation who is an employee of Nonindicted Company 1 make a false statement or to reduce false statements or matters; ③ The Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport may have an air transportation business operator or airport operator report on his/her duties or submit documents and materials (Article 153(1) of the Aviation Act and Article 33(3) of the Aviation Security Act). In particular, if necessary for the enforcement of the Aviation Act, public officials under his/her control are designated as an investigation agency for aviation security (Article 153(2) of the Aviation Act), and if necessary, have an investigation agency enter an aircraft and airport facilities to ensure the authenticity of an investigation.

Therefore, in this case, the criteria of this case are applied to the above 1). However, unlike the investigation agency, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport should decide whether to conduct a faithful investigation in consideration of the fact that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has no forced investigation authority and limited the authority to collect

C. The part of the facts charged that cannot be viewed as a deceptive scheme

Of the facts charged of obstruction of the performance of justice against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, the part of “the Investigation Committee’s identification and response obtained through the National Land Investigators” under paragraph (3) of the same Article cannot be deemed to constitute obstruction of the performance of official duties by deceptive means, in collusion with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, in addition to the mere divulgence of the outcome of investigation by the supervisor of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, as stated in paragraph (4) of the facts charged by Defendant 3, insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant 2 conspired with Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 to make mistake, mistake, and land to the supervisor or decision-taking authority, and that Defendant 1 attempted to make a favorable investigation or disposition in favor of Defendant 1 by using it.

In addition, among the facts charged, the part of “the attempt to make a statement at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport against the daily passenger” in paragraph (4) of the same Article is that Defendant 2 attempted to prevent Nonindicted Party 10 from making a statement through Nonindicted Party 28’s regular business, etc., but the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s failure to conduct an investigation with respect to Nonindicted Party 10 is deemed to have been delayed from Nonindicted Company 1’s contact point of passengers. However, it is difficult to view that the content of the facts charged is to cause mistake, perception, and land to the investigators in charge of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

D. Determination as to whether the remaining facts charged constitute obstruction of performance of official duties by deceptive means

1) The part of the facts charged in the instant case where Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 used a deceptive scheme to mislead, perceive, or cause land to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport investigators, among the facts charged in the instant case, the part where Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 used a deceptive scheme to cause mistake, mistake, or land to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport investigators, and the above Defendants 1 and 2 systematically make a false statement in the process of the investigation, or prepare a false confirmation document, and ② Defendant 2 had Nonindicted 3 submit the confirmation document directly prepared to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport investigators as Nonindicted 3 prepared, and ③ the above Defendants directly attended the Ministry of Land

2) According to the records of this case, at least Defendant 2 had Defendant 2 make a false statement to the persons subject to investigation by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, including Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2, that the part such as Defendant 1’s abusive language, assault, and assault were prevented from making a statement, and that there was a false statement to reduce the situation by threatening, threatening, and inducing them to prepare such a false statement. Defendant 2 sent a written confirmation prepared in the name of Nonindicted 3 to Nonindicted 11 and sent it to Nonindicted 3, and again sent the said written confirmation to Nonindicted 11 to Nonindicted 3, and directed Defendant 3 directly send it to Nonindicted 3 (Evidence No. 3: 1859 of the evidence record). Defendant 2 stated to the effect that, upon investigation by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Defendant 1 was unable to hear all the contents of Defendant 1’s abusive language, assault, and assault from the crew, Defendant 1 also received an investigation by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and thus, it is not recognized that it was erroneous for Defendant 1 to “the captain or crew’s.”

3) However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, i.e., (i) the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s permit Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 6 to attend the investigation; (ii) Defendant 2 neglected to answer questions with respect to Nonindicted 3, etc. for about 19 minutes; thus making it difficult for Nonindicted 3, etc. to make a true statement. ② Defendant 3 was investigated on December 11, 2014 to the effect that there was no Defendant 1’s desire, intention, or assault before the investigation with respect to Nonindicted 2, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport submitted the written statement to Nonindicted 2, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s request for cooperation by Nonindicted 1 and the prosecution, and Nonindicted 2, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s supervisory official, who did not have been able to freely make a statement with respect to Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s investigative official’s use of the records of this case’s investigation (Evidence Nos. 44 and 26). 3). 1, the supervisory official of the person subject to investigation.

E. Sub-decision

Therefore, among the facts charged against Defendant 2 and Defendant 1, the obstruction of the performance of official duties by fraudulent means constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 32

2. The destruction of evidence by December 6, 2014 among the facts charged against Defendant 2

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

At around 19:00 on December 6, 2014, Defendant 2 had Nonindicted 3 delete the e-mail and transmission records attached to the first report prepared by Nonindicted 3, and had the team leader Nonindicted 14 instructed to delete the report from all employees who received delivery of the report, and the said Defendant deleted the e-mail attached to the said report received from Nonindicted 3.

B. Determination

1) In order to establish the crime of destroying evidence, it is necessary to perceive that the evidence related to another person's criminal case is destroyed, and it is also sufficient to dolusence intentionally.

2) However, the following circumstances, i.e., Nonindicted Company 1’s initial report on Nonindicted Party 1’s e-mail that it would have been known that Nonindicted Party 2 would have been using Nonindicted Party 1’s e-mail, and that Nonindicted Party 2 would have been subject to investigation into Nonindicted Party 1’s e-mail, including Nonindicted Party 1’s e-mail, and that Nonindicted Party 2 would have been subject to investigation into Nonindicted Party 3’s e-mail, including Nonindicted Party 1’s face, but not including Nonindicted Party 3’s explanation that Nonindicted Party 2 would have been subject to investigation into Nonindicted Party 1’s e-mail, and that Nonindicted Party 2 would have been subject to investigation into Nonindicted Party 3’s e-mail, including Nonindicted Party 1’s e-mail, and that Nonindicted Party 1 would have been subject to investigation into Nonindicted Party 2’s e-mail that it would have been known that it would have been against the duty of Defendant 1’s e-mail.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 2 constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

3. Of the facts charged against Defendant 2, the point of primary charges regarding the destruction of evidence and concealment of evidence as of December 11, 2014

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

At around 14:00 on December 11, 2014, Defendant 2 reported the commencement of the prosecutor’s search and seizure at the office of Nonindicted Company 1, and had the team leader belonging to the guest room headquarters, such as Nonindicted Party 14, delete the files related to the instant case stored in the computer, and destroyed and concealed evidence regarding another person’s criminal case by replacing Defendant 2 and Nonindicted Party 11’s computer with the female computer.

B. Relevant legal principles

1) The crime of destroying evidence is established when the evidence concerning another person's criminal or disciplinary case is destroyed, and in case where the defendant destroyed the evidence to be used as evidence for the remaining one's own interest by preventing him/her from being subject to a criminal or disciplinary punishment, it shall not be deemed as the crime of destroying evidence even if the act at the same time results in the destruction of evidence concerning another accomplice's criminal or disciplinary case (see Supreme Court Decision 75Do1446 delivered on June 22, 1976). This legal principle applies even if the act results in the destruction of evidence concerning a criminal or disciplinary case of a person who is not the accomplice of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2608 delivered on September 29, 195).

2) However, the crime of causing destruction of evidence is established against a person who instigated another person to commit a crime in order to destroy evidence in his criminal case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 65Do826, Dec. 10, 1965; 99Do5275, Mar. 24, 2000).

C. Determination

Defendant 2’s hearing on December 11, 2014 that search and seizure commenced by the prosecution, and Defendant 2 made the employees, such as Nonindicted 3, etc., make a false statement at the time of investigation by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport at the time of investigating the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and made Nonindicted 3 submit a written confirmation directly prepared by Defendant 2 to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and there is a change in the fact that Defendant 2 made the relevant files deleted and changed computers.

On December 8, 2014, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport conducted an investigation on Nonindicted 3, etc. on December 8, 2014, Defendant 2 stated that Defendant 1 was aware of the fact that Defendant 1’s act of disturbance may be subject to criminal punishment (Evidence No. 4, 1936 pages), and Defendant 1 sent text messages to Defendant 1 that “I would make every effort to keep the matters of law from being at least” (Evidence No. 1766 pages of Evidence No. 3).

However, as seen in Article 3-2(b) of the criminal facts stated in the judgment, Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 3, as well as Defendant 2, as well as Defendant 2, were aware that Defendant 2, at the same time, could have been subject to criminal punishment on the said act, inasmuch as he/she did not perform an act by making false statements in the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport investigation on December 8, 2014.

In addition, Nonindicted 11 was committed by Defendant 2 to conduct an investigation by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport on December 8, 2014 (3rd page of the evidence record 1853), helps Nonindicted 3 prepare a written confirmation after the completion of the investigation (3rd page 1857 pages of the evidence record), and Defendant 2’s personal submission of the said written confirmation to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in the course of having Nonindicted 3 submit it to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport and deliver it to Nonindicted 3 (3rd page 1859 pages of the evidence record), and it seems that Defendant 2’s personal replacement with Nonindicted 11 would primarily result in concealing the said behavior.

Non-Indicted 11 made a statement on December 11, 2014 that “The contact had been made from the prosecutor’s office,” and that Nonindicted 11 instructed Defendant 2 to delete all names of Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 3” (Evidence 3 No. 1862 pages).

Thus, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2 caused the destruction or concealment of materials for the remaining one’s own interest by leaving Defendant 2 to be subject to criminal punishment directly, and therefore, Defendant 2 cannot be punished as Defendant 1’s crime of destruction of evidence, and crime of concealment of evidence, aside from the fact that the crime of aiding and abetting evidence destruction or concealment of evidence is established.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, but inasmuch as the crime of destroying evidence or of aiding and abetting evidence concealment, which is the ancillary facts charged, is found guilty, the sentence of innocence is not ordered separately.

4. Of the instant charges against Defendant 3, the divulgence of the future investigation plan by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport among the facts charged in the instant case

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 3 informed Defendant 2 of the future investigation plan of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to the effect that, around December 8, 2014 and around 21:26, Defendant 3 “A person may take measures, such as boarding passengers or the vice president’s investigation, if he/she has an objection to the report,” and that, at around December 9, 2014, Defendant 2 informed Defendant 2 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the future investigation plan to the effect that, in currency with Defendant 2, Defendant 3 “ carefully examines the investigation of the vice president of Defendant 1.”

According to the news report reference materials attached to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (Evidence No. 3: 1263) and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport has already distributed the news report reference materials “on December 8, 2014, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport is expected to complete the interview between passengers and to conduct the relevant investigation with respect to Defendant 1 vice president of Nonindicted Company 1 among the gold weeks based on the result of the interview.” Thus, it is difficult to view the future investigation plan of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, which is scheduled to investigate passengers and Defendant 1, as the fact of public notice.

Therefore, the above part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus the verdict of innocence is to be rendered pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the defendant is found guilty of the divulgence of official secrets in the judgment in the relation of each single crime

Defendant 1

1. The case of money and status is kneeling human beings, human dignity and worth, and human dignity. One person is the case in which an organization seeks to sacrifice one person on behalf of one person. If there was a minimum example and consideration for a human being, if an employee did not appear at the time of being old, if there was a public awareness about another person, including passengers, if it was possible to regulate appraisal, then the case would have not occurred.

2. In the position of vice president position and vice president position, the guest room office work responsible for the overall flight service and the safety of passengers in the aircraft at the aircraft is a dangerous and emergency action against the safety of the aircraft operation and the safety of the passengers. This is a dangerous and emergency action against the first class passenger at the time when the aircraft was put on the following (the aircraft was left on his own math and was damaged to the white passengers, and the service related to the Mean was too wrong).

3. On the attitude of transferring the organized oil and responsibilities on the part of the company, Nonindicted 3, who had satisfyed with the broadcasting station, was aware of the content of this case. Nonindicted 3, who was aware of the fact that when Nonindicted 3 worked in the company for about about 19 years, he was unable to actually work in the company with his interview, was aware of the fact that “the said person was killed, and was unable to die.” The same applies to the person related to the company,” and in this court, he stated that Nonindicted 3 was unable to work in return for physical physical or mental injury. Of course, Nonindicted 23, who was able to establish measures to prevent Nonindicted 3 from being unable to work, but Nonindicted 3, who was satisfyed with personal conscience, was aware of the possibility and public opinion that Nonindicted 3 was unable to get satisfy from his organization and public opinion, and that Nonindicted 3 was unable to have his own organization or satisfy, with the awareness that he was unable to receive any other social support or sat.

4. This case has been reported to foreign media, thereby falling down with the dignity and reputation of the State.

5. In addition, when the series of processes indicated in the records and trials of this case (a large event that the company relations required to solve the instant case, it would be good for the public to conduct it with the open company in order to conduct it, and Defendant 1 found the office of the office of the non-indicted 3 without prior understanding, and the office of the non-indicted 3, the opening of the pocket book remains in the paper. Defendant 1 did not think of the contents of the company with the intention, but rather, if the company relations is notified of the contents of the company with the intention, it appears to be stated as such. The reason for the occurrence of the instant accident is the violation of the manuals of the crew). There is some doubt as to whether the defendant is against the will of the defendant.

이상과 같은 사정 및 피고인 1 피고인이 겪고 있는 고통의 무게보다 공소외 3, 공소외 2가 받고 있는 고통의 무게가 훨씬 무겁다고 보여지는 점, 주요범죄인 항로변경으로 인한 항공보안법위반죄 등을 유죄로 판단한 점, 피해자들과 합의되지 아니한 점 등을 고려하여 피고인 1에게 실형을 선고하되, 그 구체적인 형량을 정함에 있어서는, 이 사건 항공기의 램프 리턴으로 인하여 발생한 위험이 사고 등으로 현실화되지는 않은 점, 피고인이 이 사건 범행의 세부적인 사실관계를 일부 다투지만 전체적인 사실관계는 대체로 인정하고 자신의 잘못을 반성하는 점(피고인 1 피고인은 재판부에 다음과 같은 내용으로 반성문을 제출하고 있다. ‘저는 그 모든 일을 모두 제가 한 일이고 제 탓이라고 생각합니다. 제가 그렇게 소란을 만들고 어떠한 정제도 없이 ’화‘를 표출하였으며 사람들에 대한 따뜻한 마음도 품지 못하고 제 분노를 여과 없이 드러냈습니다. 공소외 2 승무원과 공소외 3 사무장에게 내리라고 하여, 마치 그 비행기에 있을 자격이 없는 것 같은 모멸감을 느끼게 하였습니다. 이 모든 것을 제가 화가 났다는 이유로 그렇게 행동한 것입니다. 왜 화가 났는지는 중요하지 않고 변명도 될 수 없음을 잘 알고 있습니다. 중요한 것은 어린 공소외 2 승무원이 받은 큰 상처, 한 팀을 책임지는 사무장이 짐을 싸 비행기에서 내릴 때의 큰 슬픔인데, 사건 당시에는 제대로 생각하지 못 했습니다. 당시 마음 한 켠에 ’이래도 될까‘ 하는 마음이 없었던 것은 아니나 결국 제 행동의 저지선은 되지 못하였습니다. 이제 와서 생각해보면 공소외 2 승무원이나, 공소외 3 사무장이나 다 누군가의 소중한 가족이고 사랑하는 사람일 텐데, 피해자와 그 가족에게도 정말 면목 없고 죄송합니다. 제가 지은 죄에 대하여 깊이 사죄드립니다. 정말 죄송합니다.’ ‘분명 사람의 감정들은 시간이 지나면서 빛을 바래갈 텐데 어떤 후회는 시간이 지날수록 짙어진다는 생각이 듭니다. 하루하루, 그 날을 떠올리며 제가 그냥 아무 말 않았더라면 화를 다스릴 수 있었더라면 하는 부질없는 생각을 하다가, 때로는 공소외 2 승무원이나 공소외 3 사무장님이 제 화를 풀어줬더라면 하고 어이없는 생각에 이르게 됩니다. 이런 적반하장의 생각을 할 때면, 이 후회가 진심으로 반성하는 마음에서 나오는 것인지 아니면 제가 처한 상황에서 나오는 것인지 제 스스로도 잘 알 수 없는 상태에 이르게 됩니다. 그 날 아무 일이 없었더라면 또는 공소외 3 사무장님이 언론에 가서 모든 것을 말하지 않았더라면 오늘 저는 가정과 회사를 이렇게 놓아버리지 않아도 되었을 것입니다. 그러나 아마 1개월, 1년 뒤, 설사 운이 좋았다 하더라도 10년 뒤에는 아마 이 곳에 있게 될 수도 있을 것 같습니다. 제가 어떤 새로운 프로젝트나 도전적인 사업을 더 해 볼 기회는 얻었을지 모르지만 그 과정에서 또 누군가는 눈물을 흘리고, 깊은 모욕감에 좌절하였을지 모릅니다. 더 크게 저를 망치고, 제가 한없이 사랑해 온 공소외 1 회사에 더 큰 피해를 입혔을 지도 모릅니다. 찬찬히 생각해보면, 사람은 그냥 바뀔 이유는 없으므로 왠지 그랬을 것 같다는 생각이 듭니다. 제가 여기에 오지 않았더라면 과연 낯선 이로부터 대가없는 도움을 받을 기회가 있었을까, 도움의 손길을 그렇게 고맙게 여겨볼 기회가 있었을까 하는 생각이 듭니다. 제가 30일 밤 구치소에 입소하였을 때 제게 주어진 것은 작은 박스에 담긴 두루마리 휴지, 플라스틱 수저, 그릇, 비누, 칫솔, 치약이었습니다. 그리고 내의와 속옷 양말 두 켤레가 제가 가진 전부였습니다. 필요한 생필품을 사는 날짜는 정해져 있는데다가 연초가 끼어 공급자의 변경문제로 물품을 구매하는 것조차 쉽지 않았습니다. 그렇지만, 제 주위 분들은 스킨과 로션을 빌려주고, 샴푸와 린스도 빌려주고 과자도 선뜻 내어 주었습니다. 참 고마웠습니다. 더 고마웠던 것은 제게 이 사건에 대하여 아무 것도 묻지 않았습니다. 이런 것이 사람에 대한 배려구나 하는 생각이 절로 들었습니다. 내가 원하는 것이 아니라 상대방이 어떻게 느낄까를 먼저 생각하는 것 제게는 그것이 많이 부족하였습니다. 모든 것이 저의 잘못이고 죄송합니다.’ ‘이 사건이 있기 전에 저는 스스로 일적인 면에서 까칠할 수 있지만 맡은 일은 확실히 하고, 스스럼없이 남들과 어울리고, 옳고 그름이 분명하지만 또 나무라고 나면 잊기도 잘 하는 인간적이고도 화통한 상사가 되고 싶었습니다. 그러나 지금은 제 스스로를 들여다보는 것에 두려움이 앞섭니다. 제 모든 행동을 반성하고 좋은 사람, 타인이 베푸는 정을 아는 사람이 되도록 하겠습니다.’ ‘식사시간이면 4인분의 밥과 국, 찬이 들어오고 저희 방의 입소자들은 이것을 양껏 나누어 먹습니다. 메뉴에 익숙해진 탓인지 저희끼리는 가끔 나름대로의 특식을 만들어 먹습니다. 과자인 ’인디언 밥‘에 우유를 먹는 간단한 아침부터, 주먹밥이나 비빔면 등 제법 공을 들인 메뉴까지 이런 것을 먹을 때면 그 때의 대화거리가 되고 현재를 잊어보는 작은 기회가 됩니다. 이번 주말에 여러 가지 근심으로 제 말수가 적어지니 저보다 12살이 많은 입소자 언니는 특식을 만들어 주겠다고 하였습니다. 고추장에 이것저것 한정된 재료를 넣어 섞으니 훌륭한 양념고추장이 탄생했는데 냄새도 달짝지근하고 맛을 보니 밥이든 면이든 비벼먹으면 한 끼는 마파람에 게 눈 감추듯 넘어갈 맛이라 제가 할 수 있는 모든 최고의 찬사는 다 나왔던 것 같습니다. 모두가 힘껏 노력을 다해 가꿔온 그 이미지를 제가 땅콩회항이라는 사건으로 조각내어 무너뜨려 버린 것을 잘 알고 있습니다. 오늘이라도 아니 이 사건이 처음 일어날 그 때부터 공소외 1 회사가 분리되어 저의 오명에 물들지 않았더라면 하는 아쉬움도 많이 있습니다. 무엇보다 이번 사건이 한 번의 잘못의 문제가 아니라 저라는 사람이 가진 어떤 인간적 부분과도 관련되어 있고, 언론이 저를 미워하므로 제가 공소외 1 회사과 더 이상 같은 길을 걸어 갈 수도 없다는 것도 알고 있습니다. 제 잘못을 알고, 피해자들에게 정말로 미안합니다. 저로 인해 발생한 모든 피해들, 상처들이 가급적 빨리 낫기를 간절히 소망합니다. 국민이 사회가 가지고 있는 분노가 커서 저도 죄송하다는 말 반성한다는 말 이외에 어찌해야할 바를 모르겠습니다. 어떻게 해야 용서받을 수 있는지 모르겠습니다.’), 피고인 1은 공소외 3, 공소외 2 등에 대하여 사죄의 뜻을 표하면서 큰 교훈을 준 ‘평생의 스승’으로 삼겠다고 다짐하고 있는 점(이 사건이 발생할 무렵 피고인 1은 타인에 대한 마음의 문이 닫혀 있었다고 한다면, 앞서 본 반성문의 내용에 의할 때, 이제 타인을 향하는 마음의 문을 열고 자신의 잘못을 사죄할 준비가 된 것으로 보인다. 공소외 3 사무장이나, 공소외 2 승무원의 경우도 피고인 1 피고인에 대한 닫힌 마음의 문을 조금만 열어 준다면, 공소외 3 사무장이 증언한 바와 같이 경영 성과만을 추구하는 경영자가 아니라 임직원들로 하여금 직장 상사로서 지위에서 오는 열등감이 아니라 인간적 풍모로 인격적 열등감을 느낄 수 있는 큰 경영자가 될 발판을 마련해 줄 대승적 모습 내지는 상생의 모습을 보여줄 것을 기대한다), 공소외 1 회사 측에서도 공소외 3, 공소외 2, 공소외 5의 회사업무 복귀를 지원하기 위한 계획을 수립하여 시행하고 있고, 향후 조직문화를 개선하겠다고 밝힌 점, 위 피고인이 이미 언론보도에 따른 여론 악화로 상당한 고통을 받았으며, 향후 사회생활에도 상당한 지장을 받을 것으로 보이는 점, 초범이고, 약 20개월 정도 된 두 쌍둥이 아기를 둔 어머니인 점, 공소외 3, 공소외 2를 위하여 일정 금원을 공탁한 점, 일부 공소사실에 대하여 무죄를 선고하는 점 등 위 피고인에게 유리한 양형요소와 형법 제51조 에 정한 사항을 참작하여 주문과 같이 형을 정한다.

Defendant 2

Defendant 2 tried to take advantage of the employee’s mistake who had faithfully engaged in the operation of the Aircraft Flag situation of this case for the purpose of concealing Defendant 1’s wrongness. During that process, Defendant 1’s mistake was prevented, forced employees to make all of Defendant 1’s wrong statements, and forced employees to make a false statement. Defendant 2 forced the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport to make a false statement, and the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport’s supervisor made a false statement to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, thereby impairing the government’s trust in fairness and integrity. Thus, the crime is not likely to be committed.

In addition, it is an unacceptable crime that leads to search and seizure of the prosecution and orders the subordinate staff to destroy and conceal evidence, thereby hindering the investigation and judicial action of the state.

Therefore, Defendant 2 is sentenced to punishment, but Defendant 2 appears to have committed the crime of this case on the ground that it was erroneous belief that Defendant 2’s concealment of management’s mistakes was against the company. Defendant 2 appears to have committed the crime of aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence of this case on the ground that the crime of aiding and abetting the destruction of evidence of this case appears to have been committed contingently, reflects on Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2, and reflects on the damage to Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 2, such as family relationship, and it is clear that social relation such as family relationship, Defendant 2 is a primary offender, a verdict of innocence of some charges, and other matters

Defendant 3

Defendant 3 is a supervisor of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport who is in charge of investigating the Aircraft Flag incident of this case. The leakage of the survey result causes damage to the fairness and integrity of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's investigation affairs and hinder the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport's investigation function. After all, Defendant 3 is doubtful of the credibility of the results of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport investigation.

However, there is no result that the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport actually interfered with the investigation due to Defendant 3's act, it is against the public official's act, and Defendant 3 seems to have offered a relatively insignificant result of investigation by inducing the human relation with Defendant 2, and without spreading the request, and trying to maintain a fair attitude as soon as the investigation is conducted. There is no evidence that the above Defendant had actively cooperatedd on the part of Nonindicted Company 1 in the course of the investigation by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport or attempted to exert unfair influence on the investigation result itself. There is no record that Defendant 3 had been punished more heavily than once by fine, and there is no record that Defendant 3 had been punished more faithfully than once by fine, and there is no clear social relation, such as family relation, and all other circumstances such as the age, character and conduct of the above Defendant, the execution of the sentence shall be suspended at once only once, taking into account the above Defendant's age, etc.

Judges Osung U.S. (Presiding Judge)

1) The aviation safety supervisor shall periodically check and confirm whether an airline maintains the safe operation system prescribed by the relevant laws, such as the Aviation Act and the Aviation Security Act, in relation to the maintenance, operation, guest rooms, etc. of aviation.

2) Article 2 subparagraph 3 of the Aviation Act

3) Article 50(1) of the Aviation Act

4) Article 7 of the Act on Persons Performing the Duties of Judicial Police Officials and the Scope of their Duties

5) Article 2(5) of the Aviation Act provides that the definition of cabin crew shall be defined as above.

Note 6) Not less than Switzerland flight safety services (Stelim publishing), gambling (on the port, consent scientific university aviation services and full-time professors).

7) Article 7 of the Act on Persons Performing the Duties of Judicial Police Officials and the Scope of their Duties

Note 8) Article 2 subparag. 7 and 8 of the Aviation Security Act

9) Article 22(1) of the Aviation Security Act

Note 10) Aircraft is moving up to the runway section that can be moved by its own power for take-off, using earthcar, and approval of the cycle control office (R/C; Ramprol) is required.

Note 11) Galley Inc., Sigal gallon service manual gallon file, hereinafter “gallon” file.

Note 12) A simple air space located between First Clas Gas Galley and 1st class column of the above aircraft and a general seat area (L2).

Note 13) Aircraft began 00:53:40, which stops in 00:54:02 by running approximately approximately 22 seconds.

Note 14) New York-based Nos. 01:03.

15) Although the prosecutor stated in the preliminary facts charged in the written application for changes in indictment submitted on January 30, 2015 that “a person who has instigated another person to destroy evidence and conceal evidence in a criminal case,” the prosecutor’s final statement submitted on the same day appears to be the preliminary facts charged that “a person who has instigated another person to destroy evidence and conceal evidence for the defendant 2.” Thus, the “other person” in the above written application for changes in indictment appears to be a simple clerical error of “self”.

16) The Convention on the International Convention on December 7, 194 was adopted by the United States Chicago on April 4, 1947, which came into force on April 11, 1952, and came into force on December 11, 1952 for Korea.

17) The Convention on the Round of the Convention and the United Nations on the Round on the Round on September 14, 1963 adopted by Japan on December 4, 1969 and entered into force on May 20, 1971 in Korea.

18) The Hague Convention for the Convention was adopted at the Netherlands Hague on December 16, 1970 and entered into force on October 14, 1971, and came into force on September 1, 1973 for Korea; hereinafter referred to as the “The Hague Convention”).

19) The Montreal Convention was adopted from Canadian Montreal on September 23, 1971 and entered into force on January 26, 1973, and came into force on September 1, 1973 for Korea. The Montreal Convention is called the Montreal Convention.

20) The terms used in this Act shall be defined as follows:

Note 21) Following the amendment, its name was changed to the Aviation Security Act on August 26, 2002, and it was changed to the Aviation Security Act on April 5, 2013.

22) The reason for the enactment and amendment of the Aircraft Navigation Safety Act (Law No. 2742, Dec. 26, 1974), taking into account the fact that international efforts have frequently occurred during the navigation of aircraft, particularly during the international crimes against aircraft, in view of the trend of domestic legislation under which international conventions have been accepted, countries are also trying to stipulate the elements of crimes and the balancing of the elements of crimes due to the development of aircraft in large scale (Ministry of Government Legislation and National Information Center).

Note 23) This is the same as that referred to in Article 1(1) of the ASEAN Convention.

Note 24) With the evidence No. 18 and 19 of the increase, the defense counsel presented the following grounds: (a) in the legislative process of the above Japanese law, when the course was changed to a course in the direction of "in the case of a violation of the alteration of course under Article 4 in the future; (b) was presented; (c) or there was a explanation that "it is recognized that there is a risk of crying in a separate society completely isolated from the land society; (d)" before the landing, "it is not sufficiently isolated from the general society, and thus interference with aircraft at that stage may be sufficiently punished by the general criminal law." However, according to the evidence No. 19 of the increase, the above explanation explains the concept of "the Hague Convention," "in flight under the Montreal Convention," and under the above Japanese law, the concept of "in flight under aviation" = "in flight," and it is not recognized that the above example is not changed to the ground level after landing "after the landing."