Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is an owner of a fishing vessel D (7.93 tons) and is engaged in fisheries as the captain who is also the owner of the fishing vessel D (7.93 tons).

On September 20, 2014, around 06:30 on September 20, 2014, the Defendant was operating a fishing point by boarding 17 passengers on board at the hold line of the Chang-gu, Chang-gu asbestos located in Seocho-gu, Seoul, and by searching for a fishing point which is stored in the fishing train, departure from the port, and navigation equipment display.

In such cases, the defendant is obliged to thoroughly check the surrounding condition as the captain of the fishing vessel and use the navigational equipment such as radars to the maximum extent possible, and grasp the vessel, fishing vessel, obstacles, etc. operating at a safe speed and closely observe the vessel at a sufficient distance and prevent the collision accident, etc.

Nevertheless, due to negligence, in 07:05 on the same day, in order to find out fishing points at approximately 7 knotss at the speed of approximately 7 knotss at the sea on the 2.8 math day southwestdo of the west-si, Seosan-si on the same day.

E did not discover the multi-modal fishing vessel E (1.27 tons, 1 passengers on board) in which the water was carried out in the sea at the sea at the bed place, but conflict with the real central part of E of the multi-functional fishing vessel E at the fore part of the fishing vessel D and the above E lost its restoration power and transferred it to the sea at the place where one on board lost its restoration power.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. A written statement;

1. Situation report;

1. Application of documentary evidence photographic Acts and subordinate statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 189 (2) and 187 of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reasoning for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant is 80 olds, economic situation is not good, and the victim's compensation for damages to F, E owner and captain, is completed, and the defendant's punishment is not imposed even on the victim's side. The records and arguments of this case are as follows.