Defendant

All appeals filed by A, B, and Oral Tanks Limited Company and Prosecutor are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts had a tendency to twelve from the time of construction. Defendant A1’s misunderstanding of facts is called fixed days, key, or Rudio contractor.

A) The device that maintains or changes the course of the vessel was an error that was inside the zero point adjustment. Also, according to Q’s steering boat master (WHE POST) entry, Q is a vessel with the minimum speed of 8.1 knotss, the minimum navigational force of Q is a vessel with poor navigational performance. Nevertheless, Defendant Q’s captain offered a pilot card that stated the minimum navigational force of 5.0 knotss as 5.0 knotss, and posted a neutral angle on the steering boat master’s steering boat as 0∑ (PORT/SBD) and did not notify the Defendant of the unique adjustment performance. Ultimately, due to the defect of Qu’s vessel and the Defendant’s neglect of the duty of the captain’s pilotage, the collision and collision between the collision and the maritime oil pipeline (hereinafter “the collision”).

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. The Defendant’s delay is not the principal cause of the instant collision.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (two years of suspended execution for ten months of imprisonment, and eight hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

C. The facts charged against the Defendant are that Defendant B, an employee of the Defendant, discharges oil in the sea by negligence in connection with the Defendant’s business, and this is not guilty solely on the facts charged, as the Defendant did not indicate at all the independent negligence of the Defendant’s recreation tank. Nevertheless, the lower court, which recognized that the facts charged were specified, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.