beta
Text
The judgment below
Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be sentenced to three years of imprisonment, and Defendant B.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (defendant C, D, and E), Defendant C, D, and E participated in the crime of violating the current vessel fire prevention or Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention in collusion with A, etc. as seen below, and thus, they should be held liable for each of the above crimes with A, etc. as joint principal offenders. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the above Defendants is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to joint principal offenders, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The Defendant C, as the first first class mate at the time, was in charge of the management of H ships. The Defendant C, as the first class mate at the time, was in charge of the management of H ships, was on board the H without confirming his status, etc. or undergoing regular boarding-board procedures, and I did not enter the fact that it remains in the seafarer registry on the date of the occurrence of a fire, and did not enter the fact that it was concealed in the process of investigation by domestic and foreign investigation agencies.
In addition, the above Defendant, while fully aware of the fact that it is difficult to cause a fire due to electric leakage in a fish hold room, prepared a false statement to the effect that “the fire was caused by electric leakage at the bottom of the fish hold,” on behalf of the Indonesian crew members who worked in H, submitted it to the fire insurance investigator.
B) Defendant D sent the direction of Defendant D to Ha on board Ha to T, a local agent of H, so that I may board Ha. In addition, the above Defendant is a corporation AL (hereinafter “AL”).
Recognizing the fact that H fire was being investigated in mind of this intentional fire possibility, the AL survey is not only found to have concealed Defendant C’s whereabouts but also ordered Defendant E to investigate the AL case.