A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who works as an ocean-going seafarer.

No passenger of an aircraft shall commit any violence, intimidation, etc. that obstructs the security or flight of the aircraft.

Nevertheless, at around 22:50 on March 21, 2014, the Defendant started at the Incheon Frist Airport, and came to run in the front floor of the aircraft KE123, which had been operating in 52C., the Defendant asked to attend the seat from the Korea Air Operator Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Frith, 42 years of age) of the KE123, which had been urged to attend the seat, and asked to “Nhhhhhhhhhhhhh. . D. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. h. k. h. h. k. h. h. k. h. h. k. h. h. h. h. h. k. h. h. h. h. h. h. h.).

Accordingly, the defendant committed assault and intimidation that obstructs the security and flight of aircraft, and at the same time interfered with the management of passengers and the maintenance of order in the aircraft by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement related to C and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (including English and copies of written judgments);

1. Articles 46 and 23 (2) of the Act on the Safety and Security of Aviation (a point where an act of assaulting the operation or safety of aircraft has been committed) of the corresponding Act on the Safety and Security of Aviation concerning facts constituting an offense, and Article 314 (1) of each Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition on the grounds that Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant reflects the error and that the defendant was punished in Austria as the place of destination of the aircraft due to the crime in this case) is higher than that of the Criminal Act;