All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds of the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court acquitted Defendant A of the charges of this case on the ground that there was no proof of crime as to the part of each of the instant charges against Defendant A.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to the grounds of appeal.

2. As to Defendant A’s grounds of appeal

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) Defendant A with the obstruction of business: (b) falsely prepared a “report on the safety inspection of passenger ships prior to departure” at least 12 times from March 26, 2014 to April 10, 2014; (c) falsely prepared a “report on the safety inspection of passenger ships prior to departure from port”; and (d) interfered with L navigation management by deceptive means.

2) Defendant A, as the chief flight management officer who directs and supervises the operation management of the operation manager from March 24, 2014 to April 15, 2014, was aware of the fact that the operator falsely prepared the “report on the safety inspection of passenger ships before departure” and “the result of the visit to a female passenger boat,” thereby aiding and abetting the operation manager’s interference with the operation manager’s L over 272 occasions.

B. The lower court’s judgment, based on its reasoning, on the following grounds: ① Defendant A’s failure to conduct a safety inspection prior to departure or failure to conduct a safety inspection prior to departure; or Defendant A’s failure to conduct a safety inspection prior to departure but to verify the details of inspection; and: (i) signing a “report on safety inspection prior to departure from departure”; and (ii) recorded the result in “the result of the visit to passenger ships” in relation to L constitutes a fraudulent scheme; (iii) thereby, there was a risk of interference with L’s navigation management duties; and (iv) at least there was

In light of the fact, the safety check of the passenger ship before departure.