2014 Highly 218 Business Interference

A

Park Jae-in (prosecutions, public trial), pacific iron, Kim Young-young, Cho Young-sung, Kim Jong-woo (public trial)

Law Firm Sound, Attorney Gyeong-jin, and Daiop

February 12, 2015

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) Careers and duties of defendants;

The Defendant graduated from B University C around February 2006, and entered D as a government agency on April 2006, which was a government agency on behalf of the Defendant, from May 2007, and is engaged in the hull inspection duties at D Bapo Branch from June 201, D Changwon Branch from D Changwon Branch from June 201, and from May 201, D Bapo Branch from May 201, respectively, as a ship inspector.

(b) Issuance of ship inspections and ship inspection certificates;

(i)ship inspections, etc.;

(1) A ship inspection shall undergo an inspection by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries with respect to the ship facilities installed in a ship; (2) a periodic inspection to be conducted by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries with respect to the ship facilities and load load line when the ship owner first uses the ship for navigation or when the term of validity of the ship inspection expires; (3) a interim inspection to be conducted by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries with respect to the aforementioned regular inspection and regular inspection; (4) a temporary inspection to be conducted by the Minister of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries with respect to the ship owner when he/she intends to remodel or repair the ship facilities (Articles 7 through 10 of the Ship Safety Act); and a ship

The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries shall issue a shipbuilding inspection certificate or ship inspection certificate to a ship which has passed each of the above inspections, and in cases of interim inspections and temporary inspections, he/she shall indicate the results thereof to a ship inspection certificate.

A person who intends to undergo such ship inspection shall obtain prior approval from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries with respect to the drawing of the relevant ship, and shall also obtain such approval (Article 13(1) of the Ship Safety Act).

(ii) acting on behalf of inspection and other functions;

The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries may authorize the Corporation or corporation that has entered into an agreement on the ship inspection, approval of drawings, issuance of ship inspection certificates, etc. as described in the preceding paragraph, and D (D) has entered into an agreement on vicarious inspection with the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries and carries out such duties as inspection.

The Minister of Oceans and Fisheries concluded a contract with D and the Korea Ship Safety Technology Authority to conduct inspections on behalf of the Government, and D are conducting inspections on behalf of large-sized vessels and the Korea Ship Safety Technology Authority mainly.

(iii)Duties of the Marine Surveyors;

D may have a ship inspector who performs the relevant agency business and has a specific qualification, and the ship inspector shall be classified into the hull inspector, the engine inspector, and the specialized inspector.The ship inspector shall perform his/her duties fairly from an independent point of view without being affected by the designer, manufacturer, the maintenance manager, and any other person (D 2014 Prepaid and the Rules of Limit 804), and when a registered ship applies for inspection, he/she shall undergo all inspections and report to the headquarters immediately (D 2014 Prepaid and the Rules of Limit 802).

In addition, a ship inspector shall carry the inspection list for the Checkist and check the inspection items at the site without omission, and shall verify whether the inspection results or measurement records submitted by the shipowner, shipbuilding yard, repair company, etc. conform to the Prepaid Technology Rules and relevant guidelines and, if appropriate, shall be used for his/her duties, and shall be confirmed, recorded and managed as to the drawings and materials examined by the headquarters (D Existing Line Inspection Procedures 6.1.6).

If a vessel inspector passes an inspection of all the items included in the above inspection report, he/she shall submit the inspection report and inspection report (Survey Rereport) to the appointed inspection official designated by the head of the D branch or the head of the branch office, and the branch shall issue the vessel inspection report and the vessel inspection certificate (SHIP SURVE) to the shipowner.

(c) the introduction of heading E, expansion and reconstruction construction and ship inspection;

The F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "F") decided to additionally put in the above service route a carpet passenger ship at around 2010 with the approval of H, the Chairperson of F, in order to protect the entry of other ships into the service route and to replace it at the time when the age of G is different, while operating the transportation business by inserting Gho (6,32 metric tons, 1989) into the Incheon or Jeju service route. Accordingly, on October 22, 201, the F entered into a sales contract with respect to I, which was operating on the coast of Japan on March 2, 2011, imported the name of the ship, the name of the ship as E, and the registration of the new entry into the Incheon Regional Port Office of Incheon as E (hereinafter referred to as the "China").

After all, F performed the repair and extension work of subparagraph E for the purpose of expanding the passenger room and cargo loading space of subparagraph E, and at the same time, performed the repair and extension work of subparagraph E from October 201 to February 2013, F made two floors of the space generated by extending the 2.8m m, deck 5.6m, and 1.6m m3 in the line of the Ayck to the west-gun from around February 2012 to around February 2013, F performed the repair and extension work of subparagraph E for the purpose of building the personal screen room of H, the Chairperson.

As a result, E has increased the gross tonnage of 239 tons, the light weight (net weight) of 187 tons, the weight of goods has increased by 187 tons and 116 passengers on board, and the weight has increased by 51cc., so E has decreased 1,448 tons of cargo that can be loaded in order to safe navigation while maintaining the stability of safe navigation by lowering the weight center, and instead, it has no choice but to increase the horizontal number of 1,324 tons, and eventually, only 1,077 tons can load cargo.

In particular, at the time of removal of the car lamps, the weight of 30 tons (40 tons of removal and 10 tons of smuggling) was added to the on-site of the player, or the 30 tons of the left on the left side did not reduce the weight of 30 tons, which led to the deepening of the imbalance, which has a significant impact on the restitution.

E At the same time as the introduction, construction for expansion and reconstruction was conducted for the first regular inspection due to the first use, and the defendant was designated as the ship inspector of the Category D branch with respect to the introduction and the regular inspection of the extension and reconstruction construction as above, during the construction period, and was in charge of the affairs such as issuing corrective orders when there is any error in the construction work conducted in accordance with the drawings approved by the D headquarters while staying in the ship inspector's office in J during the construction period.

(d) Interference with the business of defendants;

While conducting regular inspections of ships on the introduction, expansion, and remodeling of subparagraph E, the Defendant made false reports on the results of the regular inspection of the ships to D woodbna Chapter and headquarters, so that D's operations, such as D's ship inspection, can be performed without any defect, but the following items 1 to 4, the Defendant made false reports on the slope test results, the inspection results, and the inspection report as described in paragraphs 1 to 4.

1) Regarding slope tests

A shipowner shall maintain the restitution of a ship in accordance with the standards determined and publicly announced by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, submit data about the restitution of the ship, and obtain approval from the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, and in case of subparagraph (e), he/she shall obtain D approval because he/she has undergone an inspection from D, a government vicarious inspector.

Pursuant to Article 4(1)1 of the Vessel Restoration Standards (No. 2013-76 announced by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries), a slope test (a test to measure matters necessary for calculating the weight-centered position of a ship by crossing a ship) shall be conducted. A ship inspector shall supervise whether such slope test is conducted in accordance with the relevant guidelines, and verify whether the test results are accurately measured and recorded (D restitution test guidelines), and there are differences in basic data for calculating the restitution, such as weight, and the weight of goods and the flat quantity accordingly.

Therefore, before commencing a slope test, a ship inspector shall accurately measure the capacity of each tank through (1). ② A ship inspector shall verify and record the weight and location of each relevant item on the basis of the list of items to be reconstructed, and items to be reconstructed (2), and the weight and location of each item on the basis of the list of items to be reconstructed, and ③ a slope test shall be conducted immediately before conducting a slope test, and the number of broken water measured shall be re-verification after a slope test, ④ the results of the test included in the slope test report shall be confirmed as a result of the slope test, and the results of the slope test shall be confirmed as a result of the precision test, and shall be signed on the slope test report (the preparation of attached Table 10, the guidelines for the regular inspection, the guidelines for DNA restitution test), and

Nevertheless, on January 24, 2013, the Defendant supervised a slope test in which K representative L is proceeding to the T at a Tthropic inner wall of the Tthropian located in the Tthropian on January 24, 2013, without verifying the capacity of each tank, ② did not confirm at all the weight and location of the items to be loaded, ② did not confirm the weight and location of the items to be removed at the time of completion of the vessel; ③ did not confirm whether the draft measured before the slope test is maintained after the slope test; ④ without verifying the result of the test included in the slope test while the slope test is being conducted, the Defendant participated in the slope test after calculating the stability of E in accordance with the slope test, and then sent it to the Ethropic test to the effect that the inspector at the Fropic Chapter A participated in the slope test and verified it by 10 minutes at the time of the slope test, and then sent it to the Ethropic test to the effect that it was verified by 20.

2) Regarding the examination of a load-type boarding device

With respect to the Gangseo-type boarding equipment (MES5), if a company equipped with certain human resources and facilities and passed an inspection conducted by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries as an excellent maintenance business entity, it shall be deemed that the company passed the inspection conducted by D and D shall be deemed to have passed the inspection conducted by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, and D shall issue a ship inspection certificate by adding the results of other inspection items (Article 20 of the Ship Safety Act).

A ship inspector shall, upon receipt of an application for inspection for the maintenance of a river system, obtain the records of maintenance after confirming whether the place of inspection is designated as an excellent maintenance business entity, and where it is found that the period of validity, inspection records, etc. of the design is not in conformity with the relevant standards, he/she shall take on-site measures and report the details thereof to the government agency team of the headquarters of D (Guidelines related to the dgral life raft).

Nevertheless, on December 24, 2012, the Defendant received a report on the maintenance of a river-type boarding device from M&A (hereinafter referred to as “M”) with respect to a river-type boarding device while conducting a ship inspection for E, and submitted a false pass to DD branch on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant failed to verify whether the said company was designated as an excellent passenger boarding device maintenance business entity; (b) but did not check whether the aforementioned company was designated as an excellent passenger boarding device; (c) the Defendant submitted a false pass to the effect that it was not abnormal in the inspection column of the river-type boarding device inspection column of the Korea Government Agency Agency Inspection List, CHECSOTROTROTR REGGGENNT; and (d) submitted a false inspection report stating that all items of inspection were passed as if all items of inspection were passed.

3) With regard to pre-slighting inspections

Passenger and freight boats (R-O) simultaneously loaded with cargo, such as passengers and automobiles, as E.

Fry is required to check whether smuggling is maintained so as to prevent water from entering the stern lamps, and a ship inspector must check the smuggling of the stern lamps in a way that it has the effect of a regular inspection, or in a way that has the effect equivalent thereto (D, check-up risk Eckers 205).

Nevertheless, from October 2012 to February 2013, the Defendant indicated a false pass to the effect that even without conducting a ice test or an inspection having the same effect as the above, while conducting the ship inspection of subparagraph E, the Defendant submitted a false pass to the D wood Branch, along with the inspection report (Sury Rereport) stating as if he/she passed all the inspection items on February 2013.

4) Regarding the inspection of the entrance of the fourth passenger room and the extension of the fifth floor exhibition room

D Where a ship intended to be registered is to be remodeled that affects the performance of a ship, a design drawing shall be submitted to D before commencement of the construction, and shall be inspected by a ship inspector during the remodeling construction (D 2014 advance payment and lecture Rules 101.3.), and the ship inspector shall verify, record and manage the drawings and materials examined by D headquarters as pointed out (D existing procedures for inspection of ship under 6.1.6).

Nevertheless, the Defendant, while conducting a ship inspection as above between December 2, 2012 and February 2013, conducted a ship inspection as seen above, extended or changed the entrance to the fourth floor passenger room differently from the drawing approved by the FND headquarters, and neglected the construction of a new central structure to display photographs in the fifth floor exhibition room without any restraint or corrective measures, and neglected the construction of a normal extension work in accordance with the approved drawing as if the normal extension work was performed in accordance with the approved drawing (Korean Government Agency Inspection List, CHK LTOTR SUTUTOTRY RENENT).

On February 2013, a false pass label was submitted to the D Mapo District Office, along with a false inspection report (Survey Rereport) that entered as if all items were passed on all inspection items.

After all, D) the slope test result written by the Defendant on a false and written slope test result, the check clor of Ro-Ror for the Surst and Dicory, the check clor of inspection (Korean Government vicarious inspection mark, CHEC LTOTROTOY REN.

On February 12, 2013, based on the GOVNNENT and the inspection report (Survey Red Report), the Defendant issued a ship inspection certificate to F for E on February 12, 2013, which interfered with D’s ship inspection, design drawings and ship inspection certificate.

2. Determination of facts charged

A. Relevant legal principles

The crime of interference with business under Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act is established when a person interferes with the business of another by deceptive means or by force, and the term "defensive scheme" in this context means causing mistake, mistake, or site to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the act of the offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do5730, Oct. 23, 2008).

In order to establish the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means against the defendant in accordance with the above legal principles, it shall be proved that the defendant knew that the matters listed in the slope test report, the check list, and the check report are false matters different from those measured when conducting a regular inspection of subparagraph E, and it shall not be deemed that the defendant had an intention to interfere with the business of subparagraph D solely on the ground that the defendant did not perform all the procedures prescribed by relevant provisions in conducting a regular inspection of subparagraph e.

B. Determination

1) Parts related to slope test

According to each legal statement of the Defendant, witness L, N,O, P, and Q, the following facts: (i) K employee L participated in the slope test under subparagraph E was conducted by the Defendant with other persons on January 23, 2013 to the next morning, before the Defendant arrived at a wooden spath; and (ii) the Defendant did not directly confirm the accuracy of the measurement data measured by L, etc. through sampling and sampling; (iii) the Defendant did not directly verify the weight and location of the material to be loaded at the time of the completion of the vessel; (iv) the Defendant did not measure the slope before the completion of the slope test; and (v) did not directly verify the degree of weight and location of the material to be reconstructed; and (v) the Defendant did not directly participate in the slope test only when the Defendant did not directly participate in the slope test; and (v) the Defendant did not directly participate in the test under the provisions of subparagraph 4.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant, the witness, and Q’s respective legal statements, and the fact-finding reply to D, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant did not conduct an inspection according to the procedure prescribed by the relevant provisions, and that there was a false perception that the content indicated in the slope test report was false at the time of the inspection, and there is no evidence to support otherwise that the Defendant had the intention to interfere with D’s business by causing the Defendant to mislead, perceive, or cause a site.

(A) Prepaid Inspection Test of D shall be conducted by each tank before the ship inspector commences a slope test.

The volume shall be accurately measured through crowdfunding, and the weight and location of each item shall be confirmed and recorded on the basis of the list of items to be loaded, sto be transferred, and items to be re-registered at the time of completion of the ship. D does not mean that the aforementioned provision emphasizes that measurement should be correct, but it does not mean that the inspector must directly confirm all matters, and it is interpreted that the inspector has fulfilled his/her duty in the event of confirmation through the monitoring of persons participating in measurement who are reliable in the field by attending the site.

B) In light of the procedures and contents of a ship inspection, human resources necessary for a ship inspection, etc., it is not possible for a ship inspector to measure and verify all data related to a slope test on his/her own. In ordinary cases, in light of the fact that a ship inspector, a person related to a shipbuilding station, a ship designer, etc. conducts a team and conducts a slope test based thereon under the direction of a ship inspector, it cannot be readily concluded that the result of a slope test was erroneous or there was an intention to interfere with D’s work solely on the ground that the ship inspector has trusted another person who participated in a slope test.

C) The Defendant did not directly measure certain items before a slope test and confirmed only the result of measuring L et al., and did not submit evidence to prove that the result of the test is different from fact or that there was a circumstance to suspect L et al.’s result of measurement.

D) The phrase “re-verification of the draft water after a slope test” is intended to verify whether there was no change in the draft water measured before the test. Thus, even if there was no change in the environment such as weather, etc. due to the control of the vessel’s access at the time of a slope test, and if there was no change in the draft water at the time of a slope test, it does not affect the result of a slope test even if the draft water has not been re-measurable. However, there was no evidence to prove that there was a need to re-measurement the draft water or that there was an incorrect number of the draft water measured by the Defendant prior to the slope test.

2) Regarding the examination of a load-type boarding device

Although it is true that the defendant did not confirm whether M& who inspected a dial boarding device was designated as an excellent maintenance business entity by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, the defendant asserts that M& was aware that M was designated as an excellent maintenance business entity and carried out inspection affairs for life-saving equipment, such as life-saving raft, and that it did not know that M& was designated as an excellent maintenance business entity at the time of conducting an inspection under subparagraph (e).

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant’s legal statement, confirmation, entry in the maintenance record book of the lecture type boarding system, etc., it is insufficient to recognize that there was a false perception that the Defendant had a part relating to the lecture type boarding system in the check of the Defendant at the time of conducting the ship inspection under subparagraph (E) on the sole basis of the fact that M was merely the fact that M was not designated as the head of the Doable maintenance business, and there is no evidence to support that there was an intentional intent to interfere with D by causing the Defendant to misperception, mistake, or land.

A) An inspection of a steel-line boarding device will be conducted at the excellent maintenance project site selected by the owner of the ship, and F, the owner of the ship, selected M as an inspector of a steel-line boarding device under subparagraph (e), and the Defendant did not participate in the selection of an inspector of a steel-line boarding device.

B) From November 3, 2012, M performed maintenance and checkup, such as airbaging, etc., with respect to a load-type boarding device under E, by November 3, 2012, and as a result, confirmed that the said load-type boarding device was operated normally. There was no evidence to prove that M was different from the facts as a result of the inspection conducted on the aforementioned date by M with respect to a load-type boarding device under E, and that there was no evidence to prove that this is different from the facts indicated in the physical list by the Defendant.

C) M was designated by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries as an excellent maintenance place of business for life raft trees, and conducted an inspection of life raft trees, such as E, for several years. M was in charge of an inspection of rainfall boarding devices at the time of interim inspection under subparagraph E conducted on February 2, 2014. At the time, R on the ship inspection cause of D was also limited to the fact that M was not designated as an excellent maintenance place of business for life raft boarding equipment and confirmed it by receiving the maintenance records from M.

3) With regard to pre-slighting inspections

The Defendant asserted that, at the time of conducting a regular inspection of the heading E, the Defendant did not conduct the heading test or a subdivision test while examining the smuggling of the heading lamps at the time of conducting the regular inspection of the heading E, but did not state false facts in the relevant column of the inspection list.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been found to have been intentional to obstruct D’s business by causing the Defendant to misunderstand, perceive, or land for the purpose that the Defendant did not have any error in the inspection column.

A) In this Court, the witness P, who participated in the inspection under subparagraph (e), testified that at the time when the repair and extension work for subparagraph (e) was carried out, the Defendant appeared to have observed that the Defendant went to the close with the line lamps of D-Ck and checked whether the light came to the port by the gap of the line lamps. According to these statements, it can be recognized that the Defendant was conducting the inspection under subparagraph (e) at the time of conducting the inspection.

나) D의 점검 체크리스트에는 정기검사 시 선미 램프의 밀폐성7) 검사는 '호스 테스트 또는 이와 동등한 방법(by hose testing or equivalent in case of SS)'으로 실시하도록 기재되어 있으나, 연차검사나 중간검사 시에는 육안검사 및 기능검사의 결과가 만족스러울 경우 참석한 검사관이 필요하다고 인정하지 않는 한 밀폐성 테스트를 할 필요가 없다(but during AS and IS, if the visual examination and function test have shown satisfactory results, the tightness test of shell door on Ro-Ro cargo ships need not be carried out unless considered necessary by the attending surveyor)고 기재되어 있다. 위와 같은 규정에 의하면 램프의 틈새로 빛이 새어 들어오.는지 여부를 육안으로 확인하는 빛투과시험은 호스 테스트와 동등한 방법이 아니라고 해석될 여지가 있다. 그러나 '호스 테스트와 동등한 방법'을 구체적으로 설명하는 규정이 없으므로, 위와 같은 점검 체크리스트의 기재만을 근거로 피고인이 실시한 빛투과 시험이 호스 테스트와 동등한 방법이 아니라고 단정할 수 없다.

C) According to the statement of D’s inquiry reply, D may recognize the fact that D uses light dumping test, penology test, and ultra-frequency test in a manner having the same effect as that of the heading test in checking the stormness. Accordingly, according to the criteria set out in D, light dumping test in a pre-explosion test can be recognized as having the same effect as that of the heading test.

D) Even if the light dumping test conducted by the Defendant does not correspond to the light dumping test, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant made a false statement that the Defendant did not anything anything above the inspection column, since the Defendant entered the result after examining the density of the light lamps through the light dumping test. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant made a false statement.

4) The entrance doors of the fourth passenger room and the part related to the extension inspection of the fifth floor exhibition room

The Defendant asserted that the number of the entrance doors of the fourth floor was different from the drawing at the time of conducting a ship inspection for the purpose of conducting a ship inspection for E, and that the number of the entrance doors of the fifth floor was not known. As such, the Defendant did not have a large structure in the fiveth floor exhibition room at that time, the Defendant did not state false facts in the relevant column of the inspection report.

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the Defendant and witness, L, N,O, P, and S’s respective statutory statements, drawings of guest rooms, etc., illegal structural change photographs, such as the entrance doors of the fourth floor, and the entrance doors of the general layout drawings, and the following circumstances recognized by the public prosecutor, it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone, even though the Defendant submitted the drawings approved by D headquarters, was either extended the entrance doors of the fourth floor passenger room or changed its location, and that the construction of the central structure in the fifth floor exhibition room was conducted without corrective instructions, and that the Defendant was aware that the construction of the central structure in the fifth floor was conducted, was conducted, and that the Defendant did not have any false pass label to the effect that the check box was not abnormal in the verification column.

A) The drawings of subparagraph E approved by D headquarters on December 28, 2012 and January 22, 2013, the number of entrance doors of the fourth passenger room was eight. However, C Co., Ltd installed 4th floor entrance doors of the fourth passenger room on the port side, 4, and 12 in the direction at the center of the central guest room, respectively, prior to the implementation of the slope test of subparagraph E.

B) The Defendant was not informed by F or JB of the change in the number of entrance doors before conducting a ship inspection for the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. The Defendant was at the time of the change in the entrance entrance of the passenger room of the fourth floor, but did not raise any question as to whether the number of entrance doors is visible or that the number of entrance doors is different from the drawing at the time of conducting the inspection for the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport for the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

C) According to Article 15 of the Standards for Ship Equipment, a passenger room with a seating capacity of at least 50 passengers.

Two or more entrances shall be installed in the passenger room of a vessel operating under high speed of less than 50 passengers, and one or more entrances shall be installed in the passenger room with a seating capacity of less than 50 passengers. As such, the number of entrance doors installed differently from the drawings is larger than the legal standard, and thus, if a request for approval of the modification of the drawings was made in F due to meeting the requirements for the standards for vessel equipment, it seems that there was no particular difficulty in obtaining approval from D. Accordingly, there is no reason to see that the Defendant’s extension of entrance at the time of conducting a regular inspection is not known to D.

D) For the general drawings of subparagraph E approved by D headquarters on February 6, 2013, centering on the five-story exhibition rooms.

No structure is marked. In addition, at the time of the slope test for E, the central structure was not installed in the five-story exhibition room, and only the shape line of a multimond structure scheduled to be installed on the floor as a food line with a thickness of at least 1m. The central structure was installed in Incheon around March, 2013, after the regular inspection of E.

Therefore, it was impossible to expect that the central structure will be installed in the five-story exhibition room due to the general drawings and the land at the time when the defendant conducts the inspection of subparagraph E.

E) The slope test report prepared at the time of the slope test on subparagraph E included 40 tons of “DEC COVININGIN INXIBITAL” as an object to be loaded at the time of the completion of the ship, but it is not recognized that the Defendant was aware that the Damond structure was installed at the center of the fiveth floor exhibition room in the future on the ground that it was added in relation to floor construction.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the verdict of innocence is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act

The presiding judge, judges, discretionary leaves

Judges' Rights to Judge

For judges standing:

1) The method of measuring the height of the surface of the water by putting the tank scoody in the tank (scoody) into the tank.

2) "Adddd item item" is called, and should be added when calculating the quantity of items to be loaded on a ship, on the premise of completion of construction, such as wood, board, de factoing, and fishing.

3) 'Deduced item' is called 'posted item', and should be deducted when the ship is not loaded on board the ship, such as tools, waste, etc. used in the construction as well as liquid stay, such as flats, fuel oil, and Cheongwater.

4) It is the basis for the calculation of the quantity of distribution as the vertical distance between the depths of repair and hulls.

5) It is called "Chute", and is the escape equipment of crowdfunding that helps passengers to safely get off decks on the sea in the event of emergency.

6) An inspection is conducted to check whether water flows out of a line which completely closes off by spraying a certain water pressure with the heading outside of the line.

7) According to Articles 2 subparag. 9 and 10 of the Ship Load Draft Line Standards (Notice of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 2014-53, May 20, 2014) of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (amended by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 2014-53, May 20, 2014), the smuggling is not a watertightness, but a storming substance that is required for a vessel light light light under Articles 6 and D 2014 of the Standards for the Structure, Equipment, etc. of Carpet Ships (wholly amended by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 2013-73, May 7, 2013).