2015 Highest 320 Occupational Uniforms

-1. Transfer to ○○ (1959) and to ○○ Development Co., Ltd.

2. Yellow ○○ (1960) and a director of the Development Bank of Korea, a director of the Development Bank of Korea;

3. Fixed-○○ (1956, a shipmaster) and the captain.

In case of conviction, the head of a Si/Gun/Gu shall hold a trial.

Attorney Kim Young-hoon (for the defendant Lee Young-chul, ○, and Yul○○)

Attorney Kang Jin-hee (the national line for defendant Jeong-○)

January 5, 2016

Defendant ○○’s imprisonment without prison labor for a period of one year and six months, and one year and six months, and one year and six months, and one day and six months, and one day and six months, respectively.

Any person shall be punished for six months.

However, for 2 years from the day this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant 1 and 20

for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended.

Criminal facts

/ Presumed facts

As the managing director of the Defendant ○○ Development Co., Ltd., the Defendant ○○○ was responsible for the overall management of the public sector, such as construction work at various construction sites, such as “the construction work at a large scale,” “the construction work at a large scale,” and “the construction work at a large scale, construction work at a large scale,” and management of various equipment used in the relevant construction work. The Defendant ○○ is an employee of the Defendant ○○ Development Co., Ltd., who is a person in charge of the construction site at the construction site at the construction site at the large scale, and the Defendant ○○ is the captain of a tugboat A (120 tons at a large scale).

While Defendant ○○ Development Co., Ltd. was performing construction works by receiving orders from Jeju Special Self-Governing Province “Seong Sea Farming Island Development Project Project”, Defendant ○○ Shipping Co., Ltd. leased and used 3rd-out vessels (B, a barge which takes the role of mooring various vessels at the construction site, etc. while mooring four anchors at the sea, etc. differently from ordinary barges) (B, a barge which takes the role of mooring at the sea) from ○○ Shipping Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Defendant ○○○ and Defendant Yellow Sea Farming Islands Development Co., Ltd., upon completion of the construction of the project, Defendant ○○ and Y○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd. leased and used 3rd-out vessels (B, a barge which takes the role of mooring at the port of construction site, etc.) to reduce freight transport costs. Defendant ○○ and Defendant Y○ Do Co., Ltd., Ltd., to the construction site of the construction site of the construction site of the construction site of the construction site of the construction site of the ship.

【Criminal facts

Defendant Jeong-○ is a person engaged in the operation of a tugboat A, and Defendant Lee-○ and Defendant Yellow ○ is a person leased and used a barge B.

around 05:20 on September 2, 2014, Defendant Jeong-○ also operated a ship of approximately 0.2 square meters (a size of approximately 60cm, KRW 750 tons, KRW 100 square meters, KRW 800 square meters, KRW 00, KRW 001-03 square meters (scale of 30cm), approximately 975 tons, and approximately 2,525 tons, and approximately 1 square meters, which are 30 tons in the south East East East East East East East East, and approximately 30 tons, which are connected to a ship of approximately 30 tons, and which is connected to a ship of approximately 30 tons in the east East East East East East, and which is connected to a ship of approximately 1,525 tons in the east 126.19 minutes of east 126.00.

B A vessel is prohibited from sailing in the sea area due to the lack of a vessel inspection certificate due to the failure to undergo a safety inspection by the ship inspection agency. A vessel was 37 years old-age vessels manufactured with three-rating lines (51.86m in length, 20.50m in width) other than a cargo transport barge. In comparison with a half-day cargo transport barge, the length is larger than that of the vessel, and the swaying of the vessel is depth by the direction on the outer power, such as waves during navigation. Under decks, the vessel was under the duty of care to restore the vessel, and there was an empty tank (in order to maintain the weight of the vessel at the time of operating the vessel), where there is no shock wall installed (in depth, 4.10m in depth) with the space of a sea tank (in order to maintain the center of weight), with which there is no shock wall installed, and thus, the vessel was under duty of care to rescue and manage the vessel by weighting the vessel.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired and did not perform such duty of care, and ○○○, the Defendant, directed the Defendant Y○○ to sail along the ship A and B in the status of loading the cargo as above, and the Defendant towing the ship B with the ship A, and the Defendant was eventually towing the ship B, and eventually, under the signs of bad weather such as approximately 1.2m of the aforementioned temporary wave and customs approximately 9.4m/s (on the port side of the winter and barge) and the influence of the cargo loaded on the deck of the B, which is considerably weak in terms of restitution due to the influence of the cargo loaded on the deck of the B, was frighted by the wave and the external power of the wind, and the said cargo loaded without being loaded in the process, was not caused by the fall down of the deck at the end of the deck on the port side (a.2m., a high level) and was frighted to the port port side, and thus, was frighted to the port side.

As a result, the Defendants jointly carried out the B ship, which is a ship with people due to occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime: Articles 189 (2), 187, and 30 of the Criminal Act;

§ 50, each credit cooperative type selection

1. Suspension of execution: Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the sentencing under Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the following reasons for sentencing);

Taking into account the conditions)

Judgment on the issue (Defendant ○○, YO)

First, according to the statement in the equipment use map between the owner of ○○ Development and B (hereinafter referred to as “the ship in this case”), the ship owner is responsible for the ship owner’s responsibility and technology for the operation and management of the ship in this case during the contract period, and the ship owner bears the responsibility for all accidents caused by the equipment engineer’s negligence and delay in the body. However, even if the provision itself is in itself, the ship owner’s right and responsibility for the operation of equipment during the contract period for the lease of the ship is the area of the ship’s right and responsibility for the development. On the other hand, the basic management and repair of the ship is the area of the ship’s owner. The ship owner is the ship owner’s responsibility for the accident caused by the vehicle defects caused by the equipment engineer’s negligence and the failure in management, etc., and according to the above evidence, the ship owner is the ship owner’s responsibility for the operation or management of the ship in this case. Thus, it can be acknowledged that the ship in this case’s construction work order including the above construction work order.

Therefore, the above evidence and the following circumstances revealed by the defendant, i.e., ① the ship of this case was used to transport stones necessary at the sprink sprink sprink sprink sprink sprink sprink sprink splate sprink sprink splate sprink splate sprink splate sprink sprink splate sprink sprink splate sprink sprink splate sprink splate sprink splate splate sprink splate splate splate sprink splate splate sprink splate sprink splate splate splate splate splate splate splate splate splate sp.

Defendant ○○○ and Yellow ○○○ stated that the vessel owner is responsible for the management of the instant vessel at the time of use. The liability for the entire vessel of this case is found to have been loaded in a shooting room and to have a melting with the instant vessel without undergoing a ship inspection, and that the owner of the instant vessel who did not know of the plan to load and navigate in an accident vessel, or the owner of the instant vessel who did not stop despite being aware of the plan to do so, or the owner of the instant vessel, or the owner of the instant vessel who operated the instant vessel without thoroughly considering the situation of water entering the steering room. However, as seen above, Defendant Y○, the captain of the instant vessel, can be found guilty of the above criminal facts due to the joint negligence with Defendant ○○○ and yellow ○○○○, as long as it is recognized that Defendant ○○ and ○○○○’s negligence on duty, and there was no other criminal facts or negligence related to the instant vessel, including the defect of the vessel itself, and whether there was any other criminal facts or negligence related to the instant vessel.

Reasons for sentencing

The Defendants are likely to be subject to criticism in that they caused damage to the owner of the instant vessel, etc. by navigationing a string vessel after loading the string vessel in a unreasonable manner contrary to their intended use. Such an act cannot be rationalizing solely on the following grounds: (a) the Defendants cannot be deemed to have committed a practice or are unable to load the instant vessel in light of the form of the instant vessel; (b) even though the instant vessel was previously towed, there is no serious warning to the Defendants; (c) the Defendants do not incur any damage to human life; (d) the Defendants were able to take advantage of all the instant criminal facts; (d) the Defendants were able to take advantage of the motive and circumstances of the instant crime; and (e) the Defendants were sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment without prison labor only once, taking into account the motive and circumstances leading up to the instant crime; (e) the Defendants’ occupation, and family relationship.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Kim Jong-min