In a case where the representative director of Defendant A limited liability company was indicted for violating the Harbor Transport Business Act on the ground that Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant C, Defendant C, and Defendant C did not obtain registration from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries due to the lack of qualifications for appraiser or inspector, the case holding that the Defendants’ act was not guilty on the ground that the aforementioned imported cargo was not in violation of Article 32 subparag. 1 of the same Act on the ground that, after all of the cargo was issued on the ship, the cargo transported by the ship's warehouse or factory is obviously a cargo transported by the ship's shipment or factory, and the cargo transported by

The representative director of Defendant A limited liability company is prosecuted for violating the Harbor Transport Business Act on the ground that Defendant A’s representative director: (a) conspired with Defendant C, Defendant C, and Defendant C, E, E, E, and E, did not register with the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries because he/she was not qualified as an appraiser or E, and (b) conducted appraisal and inspection of imported cargo in relation to the duties of Defendant A company; and (c)

According to Articles 2(1)15 and 16 of the same Act, “appraisal” is defined as “the work of certifying, investigating, and appraising cargo in connection with the loading or unloading of the cargo;” “welve” as “the work of calculating or verifying the loading or unloading of the cargo;” each subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the same Act as “the work of clearly distinguishing cargo from the loading or unloading of the cargo; “the work of loading or unloading from the ship on the port;” “the act of transporting cargo from the ship or the barge on the ship on the port”; “the act of loading or unloading from the ship on the ship on the port” as “the act of loading or unloading from the loading or unloading from the loading or unloading of the cargo to the loading or unloading from the loading or unloading place; “the act of loading or unloading from the loading or unloading place on the ship on the same port” as “the act of loading or unloading from the loading or unloading place on the ship on the grounds that it does not constitute an act of loading or unloading from the loading or unloading place on the ship on the port,” as “an act of loading or unloading”.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 2(1), 7(1), 32 subparag. 1, and 33 of the Harbor Transport Business Act; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Silver et al.

Attorney Park Gi-chul

Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

1. Facts charged;

Any person who intends to undergo a qualifying examination conducted by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries shall register with the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and shall not conduct appraisal or weighing without such registration.

Defendant 4’s limited liability company is a juristic person with the purpose of examining, appraising, and analyzing imported and exported cargo; Defendant 1 is the representative director of the above limited liability company; Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are the employees of the above limited liability company who conduct appraisal and weighing without qualification as appraiser or inspector; Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 are willing to perform appraisal and weighing duties even if Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, who are employees, were not registered with the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries because they were not qualified as appraiser or inspector.

A. Joint principal offenders by Defendant 2 and Defendant 1

Although Defendant 2 did not obtain registration from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, the Defendants performed their duties of appraisal and inspection on March 15, 2018 as employees of the said limited liability company, including conducting appraisal and inspection, such as measurement of imported goods, sampling, sampling, water distribution measurement, and analysis, at Nonindicted Company 1’s Dong refining factory located in Ulsan ○○○-gun, ○○○○, △△△-gun, around March 15, 2018, as shown in Appendix I, from that time until July 20, 2018.

B. Joint principal offenders by Defendant 3 and Defendant 1

Although Defendant 3 did not obtain registration from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, the Defendants performed their duties of appraisal and inspection without registration over 210 times from that time until July 26, 2018, as shown in attached Table II of the crime list, as employees of the said limited liability company, such as measurement of imported goods, sampling, sampling, water distribution measurement, and analysis in the company of non-indicted 1 company Dong 1 located in Ulsan-gun ○○○○○-gun, △△△△-gun, around March 16, 2018.

C. Defendant 4 Limited Liability Company

Defendant 1, the representative director, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, who are Defendant Company’s employees, committed each of the above offenses in relation to the business of Defendant Company.

2. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the statements made by the Defendants, Nonindicted Co. 1, and employees in charge of Nonindicted Co. 2, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, on the date and time indicated in the facts charged, they were found to have engaged in the act of supervising and collecting the frying process, sampling and water distribution measurement process, etc. regarding minerals transported to Nonindicted Co. 1’s factory or warehouse, Nonindicted Co. 2’s warehouse, etc., and delivering them to Nonindicted Co. 3, a British corporation. The prosecutor indicted the said Defendants on the ground that such act constitutes the appraisal under Article 2(1)15 of the Harbor Transport Business Act or the inspection under Article 16 of the Harbor Transport Business Act.

According to the above provisions, appraisal is defined as “the act of proving, investigating, and appraising the cargo and the ship,” and the quantity of inspection is defined as “the act of calculating or verifying the volume or weight of the cargo when loading or unloading the cargo.”

However, in light of the fact that each subparagraph of Article 2(1) of the above Act clearly distinguished from the "cargo" and the "cargo", "to load or unload freight on a ship or from a ship (No. 4)" and "to transport freight on a ship or barge in a port" (No. 5), "to load or unload freight transported by ship or barge in a warehouse in a port" (No. 6), "to load or unload freight to be transported by ship or barge in a port" (No. 7), and "to load or unload freight transported by ship or barge in a loading port or unloading port or storing freight to be transported at a loading port" (No. 8) respectively, and "to load or unload or store freight in a loading port" in the above Act shall be deemed to be "cargo in a state of loading or unloading" and "to load or unload freight in a ship from the time when loading or unloading freight is commenced to the time when the loading or unloading of freight has been completed," it shall be deemed to be reasonable or interpreted to be "from the time when the loading or unloading of freight in a ship has been completed."

According to the records, each of the freight stated in the facts charged is issued on the ship, and the freight transported to the warehouse or factory of Nonindicted Company 1 or Nonindicted Company 2, which is the owner, is obviously a heavy freight, and thus, it is not a cargo unloading from the ship. Thus, even if the defendants committed an act amounting to appraisal and inspection as stated in the facts charged, even if they did not register as an appraiser or inspector, it cannot be said that such act violates Article 32 subparag. 1 of the above Act.

3. Conclusion

Thus, since each of the facts charged in this case against the defendants is not a crime, each of the facts charged in this case is pronounced not guilty in accordance with the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment of not guilty in accordance with Article 58

[Attachment] Crime List I, II: Omitted

Judges Kim Jong-ok