logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.12.15 2017노2326
선원법위반
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and improper sentencing);

A. The Defendant introduced the crew members to the registered job referral C, which is a registered job referral office, and did not engage in the seafarer’s job placement business as stated in the lower judgment, and the Defendant and the national defense counsel withdrawn all the grounds for appeal other than unfair sentencing on the first trial date of the first trial of the first instance court. However, on October 16, 2017, the Defendant’s national defense counsel submitted a counsel’s opinion to add this part of the fact-finding claim, which is submitted within 20 days from the date when the Defendant’s national defense counsel received the record of trial (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do11213, Apr. 9, 200). The Defendant’s punishment (limited to KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Although the Defendant admitted all the facts charged in this case in the lower court’s court court court’s trial, he/she raised a dispute on the facts charged to the effect that the Defendant is misunderstanding of facts through his/her defense counsel.

According to the evidence duly adopted and duly examined by the court below, the court below stated that ① the defendant was in office C (hereinafter “the job placement office of this case”) and introduced a seafarer’s occupation as stated in the facts charged, ② the address and the name of the representative recorded on the K K website where the defendant recruited the seafarer, which is the same as that of the job placement office of this case (Evidence No. 61, 119 of the evidence record), but on the other hand, the defendant stated to the effect that not only the defendant is the representative H and staff of the job placement office of this case, but also the defendant stated to the effect that “the defendant is unrelated to the job placement office of this case” at the investigative agency (Evidence No. 87, 108, 155 of the evidence record).

arrow