Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, it shall be 100.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a company member of B, a person in charge of safety management of passenger ships E and F.

Defendant

B is a corporation established for the purpose of marine passenger transportation business.

1. In order to ensure the safety of passenger ships, etc., Defendant A coastal passenger transport business operators shall formulate the operation management rules as prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and submit them to the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, and where employees of relevant agencies, such as the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and persons operating and managing vessels, conduct an inspection, etc. in accordance with the operation management rules, he/she shall be present at the inspection as the person in charge of operation management, and shall report

Nevertheless, at around 14:00 on November 16, 2015, the Defendant did not participate in the special inspection of passenger ships in preparation for the winter season conducted by the operation management center of the Dondo Office of the Korea Ship Safety Technology Authority at the Dondo-si, Dondo-si. On November 16, 2015, the Defendant was required to improve the pointed out by November 30, 2015 (the latest amended operation management regulations so that passengers can see the missionary work and within the guest room) but did not report the result within the prescribed period.

2. Defendant A, an employee of Defendant B, committed the above act in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the Defendants’ legal statements

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. Determination of the defendants and defense counsel's assertion against the violation of the law of the sea transportation

1. Determination as to the assertion on the violation of the flight management rules due to the absence of witness

A. The summary of the argument could not be the "on-board inspection" that was scheduled under the premise of the operation at the time because the F did not operate, and since the inspection of the F scheduled to run in the A.M. was revoked, there was no obligation of Defendant A to be present.

B. According to the evidence of determination, the firstF is to check the boarding inspection method for the period from November 16, 2015 to 12:30 hours.