Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Park Ho-hoon

Attorney Choi Dong-young

Gwangju District Court Decision 2007 High Court Decision 211 Decided June 12, 2008

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 (Misunderstanding and misunderstanding of legal principles)

① An international charter agreement between Nonindicted Co. 1 and Nonindicted Co. 2 constitutes a regular charter agreement, not a vessel lease agreement, but a voyage charter agreement, and thus, Defendant 2, the captain of an international 5, has all the authority and responsibility for navigation, such as whether to depart from the port and choice of the sea route, and Defendant 1, the charterer Nonindicted Co. 1 and Defendant 1, who did not have the right to direct and supervise Defendant 2, does not bear any legal obligation to avoid departing from the port, as well as to avoid departing from the port. ② In addition, Defendant 1 merely notified Defendant 2 of the time determined at the meeting to leave the port, and it was unreasonable to force Defendant 2 to depart from the port. Moreover, Defendant 5’s departure from the port was made only by Defendant 2’s own judgment. Furthermore, the accident of this case was caused by Defendant 2’s negligence, and there is no causal relation with Defendant 1’

B. Defendant 2 (De facto Error and Unreasonable Sentencing)

① The instant accident occurred due to Defendant 1’s order to leave the port excessively at the high risk of the accident. Defendant 2 took all possible safety measures, such as recommendation to change the departure time, strengthening the connection of towing and floating ships, proposal of a funeral, and instructions to the administration of the modern Linyal No. 1001, which is the barge immediately before the collision, to prevent the occurrence of the accident, and the rescue of human lives and various safety measures after the accident, and thus, there is no occupational negligence in relation to the instant accident. ② The punishment (three million won a fine) sentenced by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on Defendant 1’s assertion and misunderstanding of facts by Defendant 2

(1) The basic facts

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged.

㈎ 공소외 4 주식회사는 한국해양연구원으로부터 울돌목시험조류발전소 건설공사를 도급받아 그 중 ‘R.C.D.굴착 및 재킷(Jacket) 주1) 거치공사 ’를 공소외 1 주식회사에 하도급을 주어 이를 시공하도록 하였고, 공소외 1 주식회사는 위 공사를 수행하기 위하여 공소외 5 주식회사로부터 재킷을 적재할 무동력 부선 현대로얄 10001호를 임차하는 한편, 공소외 2 주식회사와 예인선 국제5호 및 국제1호에 대한 용선계약을 체결하였는데, 국제5호에 대하여는 ‘2007. 4. 20.부터 같은 해 4. 27.까지 1일 용선료 800만원의 요율을 적용하여 용선한다’는 내용의 계약서를 작성하였고, 국제1호에 대하여는 별도의 계약서 없이 구두로만 필요한 시간 동안 사용하기로 하는 내용의 합의를 하였다.

㈏ 울돌목시험조류발전소가 건설될 명량해협은 조류의 변화가 극심하고 유속이 매우 강하여 사고의 위험이 높은 곳이어서, 공소외 4 주식회사와 공소외 1 주식회사가 가능한 정조시점에 맞추어 공사를 진행하기로 합의함에 따라 당초 이 사건 공사는 2007. 4. 22. 16:00경 해상크레인을 먼저 운반한 후, 다음날인 4. 23. 11:00경 재킷을 운반하는 순서로 진행될 예정이었고, 국제5호(선장 피고인 2)와 국제1호(선장업무대행 항해사 공소외 3)는 공소외 1 주식회사 측의 지시에 따라 2007. 4. 22. 오전경 이 사건 공사현장 부근에 위치한 전남 진도군 군내면 벽파항에 도착하였다.

㈐ 그런데 작업 개시 직전에 해상크레인부선의 소유자인 공소외 6 주식회사 측으로부터 작업상의 어려움을 이유로 작업 순서를 변경하자는 제안이 있었고, 이에 따라 같은 날 15:00경 공소외 4 주식회사의 현장 사무실에서 공사관련자들이 모인 사전회의가 열리게 되었으며, 위 사전회의에서는, 공소외 4 주식회사의 현장소장 공소외 7의 주재 하에 공소외 1 주식회사 현장소장 피고인 1, 공소외 6 주식회사의 사장 공소외 8과 현장소장 공소외 9, 국제5호의 선장 피고인 2, 국제1호의 선장업무대행 공소외 3 등이 참석한 가운데 해상크레인부선의 운반방법이 집중적으로 논의되었고, 재킷의 운반에 대하여는 같은 날 22:00경 정조시점에 맞추어 운송하기로 결정한 것 외에 별도로 논의된 사항은 없었다.

㈑ 사전회의와 현장답사를 마친 후 높이 32미터, 길이 36미터, 폭 16미터, 무게 약 790톤의 재킷을 현대로얄 10001호에 선적하는 작업이 시작되어 같은 날 21:30경에야 선적작업이 완료되었고, 국제5호를 비롯한 예인선단(예인선 국제5호 및 국제1호, 부선 현대로얄 10001호)은 같은 날 22:00경 벽파항 선착장을 떠나면서 부선에서 투묘했던 닻을 감아 올린 후, 같은 날 22:30경에야 목적지인 전남 진도군 군내면 녹진리 부근 물양장을 향해 이동을 시작하게 되었다.

㈒ 출항 전 피고인 2는 피고인 1에게 무전기로 ‘야간인데다 이미 정조시점(22:00경)을 지나 유속이 빨라지면서 조류가 진도대교 방향으로 흐르고 있어 위험하니, 다음 날 오전 정조시점(11:00경)에 역조를 받으면서 작업을 실시하는 것이 어떻겠느냐’라는 취지로 출항을 연기할 것을 건의하였으나, 피고인 1은 ‘다음 날 11:00경에는 해상크레인부선의 예인작업이 예정되어 있으므로 지금 재킷이 운반되어야만 다음 날 작업이 계획대로 진행될 수 있다, 이미 회의에서 논의하여 결정된 사항인데 이제 와서 출항시기를 바꾸자고 하면 어떻게 하느냐’고 대답하였고, 그 후 피고인 2는 예정대로 예인선단을 지휘하여 출항하였다.

㈓ 예인선단은 예정된 항로를 따라 약 4노트 이상의 속력으로 항해를 하다가 23:00경 물양장 앞 해상에 도착하였고, 피고인 2는 예인선단을 물양장을 향해 사선방향으로 진행시킨 후 부선의 오른쪽 선미부에 결합된 국제5호는 물양장을 향해 45도 방향으로 밀게 하고 부선의 오른쪽 선수부에 결합된 국제1호는 물양장을 향해 정면으로 밀게 하는 방법으로 부선을 물양장에 접근시키려고 하였으나, 그 과정에서 부선의 선수부가 물양장쪽을 향해 왼쪽으로 돌아가면서 조류에 의해 진도대교 쪽으로 떠밀리게 되었다.

㈔ 이에 피고인 2는 국제5호와 국제1호의 예인력을 최대한 발휘하여 예인선단의 선수미 방향이 조류와 평행이 되도록 하기 위해 노력하였으나, 조류의 영향이 너무 강하여 계속 진도대교 쪽으로 떠밀리게 되었고, 예인선단이 진도대교와 약 100미터 정도까지 가까워지자 피고인 2는 부선 선수부에 있는 공소외 10에게 부선의 닻을 투묘하도록 지시하였으나 응답을 받지 못한 상태에서 계속하여 떠밀리다가, 결국 같은 날 23:13경 재킷의 상부가 제1진도대교에 부딪히게 되었다.

㈕ 그 후 국제5호와 국제1호는 부선의 승무원들을 태운 뒤 부선을 이탈하였고, 예인선과 분리된 부선 현대로얄 10001호는 재킷의 상부가 제1진도대교와 접촉한 상태로 조류를 받으며 걸려있다가 다음날 00:08경 재킷이 부선으로부터 떨어져 나가면서 해저로 추락함으로써 같은 해 5. 10.경까지 부근 해상의 선박교통을 방해하였다.

(2) The nature of the charter party of this case (defendant 1's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle)

Whether a contract for the use of a ship is a ship lease contract, a voyage charter, or a third party special contract of a similar nature, and whether the actual right to command and supervise the captain and crew of the ship is granted to the user, shall be determined by specifically examining the purpose and content of the contract, particularly the length of the use period, the height of the user fee, the existence of the possession relationship, and other terms and conditions of the lease (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da19090 delivered on February 5, 199).

In other words, Nonindicted Co. 1 borrowed international 5 and international 1 of a tugboat from Nonindicted Co. 2 to carry out the instant construction with the captain and crew attached thereto. International Co. 1 was to use international 5 for necessary hours, for international 5 years from April 2007 to April 27, 2007, for 8 million won per day from April 20 of the same year. ② Examining the contents of this case’s shipping work, the tugboat’s captain should read the barge designated by the charterer to the place designated by the charterer. Moreover, since the fleet transport work and the shipping work are carried out together, Nonindicted Co. 1 Co. 2 is bound to follow the charterer’s decision and direction on work hours or work order, ③ it is reasonable to view the captain’s right to use or supervise the fleet as the first day of the maritime charter contract, and it is reasonable to view the captain’s right to use or supervise the charterer at around 201:0 on April 21, 2007.

Therefore, even if technical parts during navigation are entirely carried out under Defendant 2’s judgment and responsibility, it is reasonable to view Defendant 1 has the right to direct and supervise Defendant 2, and Defendant 1 has the legal duty to prevent tugboat from departing from the port at a high risk point of view, considering the risk factors of the accident in light of the command and supervision authority. Accordingly, Defendant 1’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(3) The cause of the instant accident (as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts)

㈎ 피고인 1의 업무상 과실

Defendant 1, as the site manager of Nonindicted Co. 1, a contractor of the instant construction, is in charge of the affairs to establish a plan for the construction transition team with Nonindicted Co. 4, a contractor, and supervise the construction site, and direct and supervise the barge and tugboat so that each maritime transportation work can be conducted safely.

However, as seen earlier, Defendant 1 did not have sought measures to delay departure or stop departure in the case of leaving the port as it is due to the delay in the loading of the kacker and the sea guard on the sea of this case with the high risk of accidents. Furthermore, Defendant 1 ordered Defendant 2 to stop departure without accepting it even though he was recommended to postpone departure from the port. As a result, Defendant 1's allegation on this part is without merit.

㈏ 피고인 2의 업무상 과실

Defendant 2, as the captain of the tugboat international 5, is in charge of towing Hyundai 1,001, which is loaded with a tugboat international 1, and is in charge of towing up to the water tank safely.

In particular, even though Defendant 2 had the captain’s authority and responsibility on navigation, as seen earlier, he left the port at the time when the risk of accident is high. In particular, Defendant 2’s assertion on this part is without merit, since Defendant 2 got into the sea before the water bed, he knew of the seriousness of the situation and had a prudent approach to the water bed, even though he should operate the tugboat and approach it to the water bed, as a result of operating the tugboat in an unreasonable manner, it conflicts with the first Jindo by being overed to the water bed to the water bed.

B. Determination on Defendant 2’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

Considering the degree of negligence of Defendant 2 in the instant accident, the period and degree of the obstruction of the traffic of the ship, the age, character and conduct, family environment, criminal record relationship, the circumstances and result of the instant crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable since it is not recognized that the sentence imposed by the defendant is too unreasonable. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendants is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jong-won (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) The tidal power generation is a power generation method that sets up steel structures for the installation of a hydroelectric power generator in the sea area where the tidal current occurs strongly, and sets up a water tank in the inside of the water tank to convert the physical energy due to the flow of current currents into electric energy by using the hydroelectric power, and Nonindicted Co. 1 was subcontracted among them.