(a) The case holding that as a full-time statement, the original person making the original statement cannot be admitted as evidence of guilt because there is no evidence concerning death, disease, or other causes which make it impossible to make

B. In a case where it is impossible to find a guilty of a part of the facts constituting a single comprehensive crime among the concurrent crimes of Gap and Eul which were found guilty in the appellate court, the scope of the period of appeal to the Supreme Court

C. Whether the act of paying wages to the captain of a ship who has appointed by the captain on the recommendation of seafarers and who has been in charge of affairs such as the calculation of wages of seafarers on behalf of seafarers violates Article 48(1) of the Seafarers Act (negative)

A. If the statement of the witness Gap in the court in Paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the witness Gap and the statement of the judicial police officer Gap in the record of preparation of the defendant's duty handling as evidence is known to Eul from Eul, then there is no evidence as to whether Eul, the original person making the statement, was dead, ill, or there is any other reason for not being able to make a statement due to death, disease, or any other reason, the Gap's testimony and statement of the statement cannot be used as evidence of guilt.

B. Even if the lower court deemed that the crime under paragraph (1) of this judgment was a comprehensive one crime, and thus, cannot be found guilty of some of the facts constituting the crime, the facts constituting the condition for sentencing should be reversed in its entirety. If the crime under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this judgment was committed as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, then the lower court should reverse the entire part of the crime under paragraphs (1) and (2) of the judgment of conviction.

C. The captain of a ship, who was appointed by the captain on the recommendation of the crew, has been engaged in the work of calculating the wages of the crew on behalf of the crew. At the time of the instant case, if the captain calculated the wages of the crew on behalf of the crew and received the payment of the crew wages, deposit money, etc. from the shipowner, it can be deemed that the shipowner paid the above wages to the captain and paid them to the crew. Thus, the shipowner cannot be deemed to have violated Article 48(1) of the Seafarers Act.

A. Articles 313(1), 314, and 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 384(c) of the same Act; Article 37 of the Criminal Act; Article 48(1) of the Seafarers Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Do135 Delivered on December 23, 1980

Defendant

Defendant, Prosecutor

Attorney Lee Dong-soo

Daegu District Court Decision 88No618 delivered on November 17, 1988

The conviction portion of the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. We examine the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel.

In light of the records, among the monthly fixed pay for the monthly fixed pay for October 1985 stated in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts in the original trial, the part that did not pay the amount stated in the judgment of the court below to the non-indicted strong uniforms, Kim Jin, Ansan iron, and safe criminal stated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table of the crime list of the court below in the original trial, and the part that did not pay the monthly fixed pay amount for November of the same year stated in paragraph (2) of the criminal facts in the original trial can be sufficiently recognized, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit in

However, in light of the part concerning non-indicted 1's monthly closure of October 1985, the court below's determination that the defendant's statement in the court of first instance and the protocol of examination of the defendant in the process of performing duties of judicial police officers, among the evidence presented in order to stabilize this part of the judgment, agreed to pay monthly fixed pay to the seafarers who participated in repair work for 15 days or more as of the 30th day of each month, and that the non-indicted 1's statement in the court of first instance and the above protocol of examination of the defendant in the process of preparing Kim Jong-dong's duty could not be found as evidence for the reason that the non-indicted 2's statement that the above non-indicted 3's statement was not an obligation to pay monthly fixed pay to them as evidence, and the court below's determination that the defendant's above statement in the court of first instance and the defendant's statement that the non-indicted 1's witness Kim Jong-dong's non-indicted 2's defendant's above statement that the above non-indicted 1's witness's statement in the above statement could be found as evidence.

2. We examine the prosecutor's appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, the right to assistance, which is the chief secretary of the ship of this case, was appointed by the captain on behalf of the seafarers on the recommendation of the seafarers, and was engaged in the work of calculating the wages of the seafarers on behalf of the seafarers, and at the time of this case, the defendant calculated the wages of the seafarers at the captain's instruction and received deposits, etc. from the defendant. Under the above circumstances, the defendant who is the shipowner of this case, paid the above wages to the above Chocheon-do and paid them to the seafarers. Thus, the court below's decision that the facts charged in this case did not constitute a violation of Article 48 (1) of the Seafarers Act or there is no proof thereof, and reversed the judgment of the court of first instance and sentenced the defendant not guilty, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the above provision. The argument is without merit.

3. Therefore, the guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won