Whether the concept of "passenger ship" among small ships under the Ship Personnel Act is the same as that under the Ship Safety Act (affirmative)

The meaning of "passenger ship" under the Ship Safety Act, which is the Act and subordinate statutes concerning physical facilities of ships, is defined as a ship that can load more than 13 passengers and the application different from that of less than 13 persons is carried out by the Ship Personnel Act, which is the Act and subordinate statutes concerning the human elements of ship operation. Thus, the concept of "passenger ship" under the Ship Personnel Act should be defined in accordance with the number of "passenger ships" that can load a ship in the same manner as that of "passenger ships" under the Ship Safety Act

Article 2 subparag. 1 and Article 11 of the Ship Personnel Act, Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, Article 22(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Ship Safety Act, Article 2 subparag. 6 and 7 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Ship Safety Act (Presidential Decree No. 11098, Apr. 12, 1983)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Cheongju District Court Decision 201Hun-Ba68

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 5,000 into one day.

shall order the provisional payment of the amount equivalent to the above fine.

The gist of the prosecutor's grounds for appeal is that the ship of this case is 19.53 tons of total tonnage and 50 persons on board, which constitutes a passenger ship among small ships, and the defendant is the defendant, under Article 11 of the Ship Personnel Act and Article 22 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and Article 22 (1) of the same Act, the defendant must have a marine officer work at least 6 mate (at least 5th mate in the indictment but it seems to be erroneous in writing) as the captain, but the non-indicted 1, who is the operator of a small ship, as the captain of the ship, did not constitute a crime element because the court below did not regard the ship of this case as a ship other than a passenger ship among the small ships, or even if it constitutes a family elements, the defendant mispers the captain of the small ship of this case as the captain of the ship of this case, and mismisunderstanding the defendant as to such mismisunderstanding, which caused the interpretation of statutes or erred in the law.

Therefore, even if the vessel of this case falls under the "passenger ship" under Article 22 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Ship Personnel Act, only the concept of "ship" (Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Ship Personnel Act) and "small-type vessel" (Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act) are explicitly defined, but the concept of "passenger ship" is not expressly defined but also the concept of "passenger ship" under the Ship Safety Act established to secure seaworthiness and to install facilities necessary to ensure the safety of human life and goods. The concept of "passenger ship" should be defined differently from the concept of "passenger ship under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Ship Personnel Act," and the concept of "ship's vessel under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Ship Personnel Act, which is under 1098 of the Ship Personnel Act, should be defined as "ship's total tonnage," and the concept of "ship's material safety" should be defined as "ship's 1 or more different from that of a vessel under the Ship Safety Act.

Although the concept of a passenger ship under the Ship Personnel Act is interpreted as above, the court below, inasmuch as the concept of a passenger ship is not explicitly defined in the Ship Personnel Act, the concept of a passenger ship is defined as an ordinary meaning, and concluded that the concept of a passenger ship cannot be seen as a passenger ship as a floating vessel for tourism is merely an arbitrary and arbitrary interpretation.

Next, as to whether the defendant's act was dismissed as a mistake in law, according to the health stand, the report on the excursion ship business bound in the investigation records of this case, the statement of non-indicted 2 of the prosecutor's preparation, etc., as to whether the defendant's act was dismissed as a mistake in law, the defendant reported the non-indicted 2 with the qualification of the Class B mate (applicable to class 5 mate under the current Ship Personnel Act) as the captain of the excursion ship of this case when he reported the application for the operation of the excursion ship and the two 1.5 tons of ships, and when he reported the operation of the excursion ship business of this case, the defendant reported the non-indicted 2 as the captain of the excursion ship of this case, and the non-indicted 2 made the payment for the consideration after the non-indicted 2 kept on board as the captain's name on the public register. It is difficult to

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the qualification for serving aboard ship under the Ship Personnel Act, as well as by misapprehending the legal principles on the mistake of law. Therefore, it is reasonable to discuss the appeal by the prosecutor who caused the error.

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the party members reverse the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and render a decision again as follows.

The defendant was the representative director of the non-party 3 corporation who is operating an excursion ship business. From October 4, 1986 to October 20 of the same month, from the 24th of the same month to the 10th of January, 1987, the defendant had the captain of the non-party 1, who is qualified as a captain of the non-party 6 mate or higher, work on board the ship on the tourist route within approximately 13 kilometers from the 13 kilometersgrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrigrig, and operated a small ship less than 30 tons in total, but it had the captain of the non-party 1, who is qualified as the non-party 1,

The facts of the ruling shall:

1. Statement corresponding to the defendant in the first trial record of the court below;

1. In the sixth trial record of the lower court, Nonindicted 3’s statement corresponding thereto is written.

1. Statement corresponding to the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Each statement made by the public prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 2 and 1, which correspond to the statement;

1. The judgment of the Cheongcheon District Prosecutor's Office in the Jeju District Prosecutor's Office can be recognized in full view of the certificates of shipment prepared by the Cheongcheon District Prosecutor's Office and records corresponding thereto.

The judgment of the defendant constitutes Article 27 subparagraph 4 and Article 11 of the Ship Personnel Act, and thus, the defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won within the scope of the amount, and if the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be detained in the old house for the period calculated by converting the amount of 5,000 won into one day in accordance with Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act, and an amount equivalent to the above fine shall be provisionally paid in accordance with Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Dok-Il (Presiding Judge)