logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.07.23 2015노1000
업무상과실선박매몰등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, Defendant did not intrude the dredging vessel of this case at least 1.25 meters, the draft of which was changed due to the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles, as the location of the spud support unit, which is a mobile device, is fixed by melting the dredging tank F (361 ton, hereinafter “the dredging vessel of this case”) with a separate type of spud support unit, and the location of the spud support unit, which is a mobile device, was changed from outside of the spud tank,

However, while the defendant was hospitalized in a hospital, D made the oil tank illegally in the engine room and dredging work, D had the captain I and the driver J loaded the water to the dredging tank in the vessel with the oil tank, and caused the oil 8,000-liter in the vessel to be loaded in the oil tank, and the oil 8,000-liter was stored in the oil tank with the vessel 1.95 meters or more.

Accordingly, the dredging line of this case was buried in water due to the inflow of rainfalls, which is not due to the negligence of the defendant.

In addition, at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the ice of the Nakdong River was about 0.1m thick, and Hyundai Construction did not have water pollution by rapidly treating it.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s sentence (five million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The following facts are acknowledged, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court and the lower court. (A) The dredging vessel of this case was in danger of sinking on March 4, 2010, but thereafter, the Defendant changed the location of the work source in front of the dredging vessel 1 and the restaurant department 1 and the incidental tank 5, and installed a 590m radius in diameter and 12m radius in length at the stern left and right-hand body.

However, water between the Skid and Skid support team is water.

arrow