The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. At the time of the instant case’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the Defendant, while driving C, was engaged in fishing operation at a sufficient distance from the other vessel. However, according to Daom, the Defendant did not have time to prevent or avoid collision.

Therefore, even though the defendant fulfilled his duty of care to maintain safety distance and prevent collision, he suffered an accident by force.

However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the charge of occupational injury and injury is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant was at the time of the instant case by negligence, such as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is lawful, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

A. At the time of the instant case, more than 10 vessels were engaged in fishing at a narrow distance of 20m between 10 and 20m.

On the sea, due to the impact of tidal and wind, a vessel may move to the port, not intended to place the vessel on the port, and could have predicted that a sudden collision between the vessels may occur in the situation where several vessels are operating in the aforementioned narrow areas.

I seem to appear.

B. The Defendant, as the captain of a fishing vessel, is in the position of being responsible for safety management of passengers, and thus, in the event that fishing operation by securing a sufficient distance from other vessels in advance and the movement of other vessels is anticipated to occur, the Defendant shall immediately move the vessel of the Defendant.