(a) In a case where a passenger of helicopters fells on the sea by negligence not operated in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Emergency Navigation Act in the event of an emergency at the time of the engine failure, whether such an aircraft constitutes a crime of occupational negligence under Article 187 of the Criminal Act (affirmative)

(b) The meaning of Article 57 (4) of the Aviation Act "in the event of an imminent danger to an aircraft" and the requirements for establishing crimes under Article 132 of the same Act.

A. The term "saluting of an aircraft" in Article 187 of the Criminal Code means that an aircraft floating on the air does not land or start on the ground or water surface in accordance with the prescribed navigation rules in time of normal or emergency, and does not fall on the ground or water surface in a state other than that. In a case where a pilot operating a helicopter with three passengers aboard, if an engine failure occurs, due to negligence in failure to operate the said aircraft in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the navigation rules at the time of emergency, and falling on the sea without safely landing the said aircraft, it constitutes an occupational negligence, if it falls on the sea.

B. Article 132 of the Aviation Act provides that if the captain does not take measures necessary for the rescue of passengers, the prevention of danger to persons or things on land or water in the event of an imminent danger to the aircraft in flight under the provisions of Article 57(4), the captain shall be punished if he/she does not take such measures. "in the event of an imminent danger to the aircraft" refers to the case where the occurrence of an imminent danger, such as the fall, transfer, destruction, etc., of the aircraft objectively means the case where the captain objectively knows the imminent danger to the aircraft, and the case where the captain subjectively knows that there is an imminent danger to the aircraft, and the case where the captain knowss what kind of danger to the life, body, property, etc., and does not take measures necessary for the prevention of such danger, the captain shall be punished pursuant to the provisions of

(a) Article 187 of the Criminal Act; Articles 57(4) and 132 of the Aviation Act;

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 1 Prosecutor (Defendant 2)

Attorney Kim Jong-won (Defendant 1)

Daegu District Court Decision 90No312 delivered on May 25, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

In regard to Defendant 1, 105 days out of detention days prior to the imposition of judgment after an appeal shall be included in the penalty of the original judgment.

1. As to Defendant 1 and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

The term “routage” as referred to in Article 187 of the Criminal Act means that an aircraft floating in the air does not land or start on the ground or water surface in accordance with prescribed navigation rules at normal times or emergency, and falling on the ground or water surface. According to the evidence adopted by the court below, the Defendant, the pilot, takes off three crew members and six passengers, including the Aircraft in question, and operates the aircraft in Ulle-do at the distance of 185.2 meters from Ulle-do, and without any error in the law of safe operation of the aircraft at the latest because it is difficult to reduce the operating speed of the aircraft, such as the first engine pressure from Ulle to 63 kilometers, and make it difficult for the Defendant to safely submit the aircraft’s engine pressure at the point of time due to the lack of sufficient operation and to reduce the operating speed of the aircraft to the maximum extent possible and to reduce the operating speed of the aircraft due to the failure of the aircraft in operation and without any error in the law of safe operation.

In addition, Article 132 of the Aviation Act provides that if the captain fails to take measures necessary to prevent any danger to the persons or things on the ground or water pursuant to the provisions of Article 57 (4), the term "in the event of an imminent danger to the aircraft" means the case where the occurrence of an imminent danger, such as falling, mooring, destruction, etc. of the aircraft objectively occurs, and subjectively, the captain does not take measures necessary to prevent any danger to the life, body, property, etc. of the aircraft, while he knows that there is an imminent danger to the aircraft. According to the facts established by the court below, the defendant was unable to continue flight of the helicopter due to the above circumstances, and there was an urgent danger to the emergency landing of the aircraft at the time of the above time of the emergency landing, the court below should have determined that the emergency landing of the aircraft would be possible at the time of the emergency landing, and even if it was possible to take measures to prevent any danger to the passengers on the airplane, the defendant's captain was informed of the danger that it was possible to use the aircraft at the time of the emergency landing.

Finally, according to the records, the defendant's negligence that did not take the above procedure for operating an aircraft in an emergency, and fell the above helicopter on the sea, and the defendant's negligence that did not take all necessary measures to prevent any danger to the passengers is recognized as having died or injured as shown in the facts charged. The defendant cannot be found to have no negligence on the part of the defendant on the part of the defendant just because the damage was increased due to the failure to properly examine the abandonment after the aircraft's drilling, such as the theory of the lawsuit. Thus, the judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of occupational negligence is proper, and there is no error of law of misunderstanding the facts, such as the

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal:

The court below's finding Defendant 2 not guilty of the facts charged in the occupational negligence of this case on the ground that there is no proof of the facts charged in the occupational negligence of this case, and therefore there is no error of law as to the theory of the lawsuit.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and part of the number of days pending trial by Defendant 1 is to be included in the original sentence of the original judgment. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)