207 Highest 5590 A. Special larceny (any altered crime's occupational embezzlement)

(b) A thief (a altered crime and occupational embezzlement);

(c) Transportation of stolen goods;

1. (a) A. (2) A. (61 years old, south) and captain;

2. (a) A2 (60 years old and over), a captain;

3.(c) A3 (44 years old, South) , and airmasters;

Doctor’s degree

Attorney Kim Dong-soo (for the defendant)

August 29, 2008

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of the facts charged

A. The Defendant A1 and A2’s occupational embezzlement is the captain of the “92X-ho,” the two-boats, the injured party B, and the Defendant A2 is the captain of the “201X-ho, the injured party C.”

The Defendants, taking advantage of the above position, agreed to deduct the life vessels of the victims from the course of fishing and entering the port into the port, and agreed to deduct the life vessels from the way of transporting the 'UFS' to the ‘UFSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

(1) Defendant Al

(A) On June 10, 2006, at around 09:00, the Defendant, in collusion with D and embezzled the amount equivalent to KRW 1,100,000 of the market price of the 11st generation ship in collusion with D while keeping the living ship captured by the victim B with D at the above 92X which was anchored in the common fishing market located in Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City, Seo-gu, Busan.

(B) On January 8, 2007, the Defendant, at around 09:00, embezzled at his own discretion the amount equivalent to KRW 300,000 at the market price of the three boxes of the three boxes of the three boxes, while he kept the living vessel captured by the victim B in the same manner as the preceding paragraph in the above 92X, which was anchored in the above common fishing market.

(C) On March 2, 2007, the Defendant, at around 09:00, embezzled at his own discretion the amount equivalent to KRW 300,000 at the market price of the three boxes of the three boxes of the three boxes of the victims, who were engaged in the business of the three boxes of the three boxes of the three boxes of the victims, who were anchored in the above common fishing market.

(2) Defendant A2

On June 7, 2006, the Defendant, in collusion with F, etc., and embezzled amounting to KRW 2,100,000 at the market price of the living vessel 21 boxes in collusion with F, G, H, I, etc. while the Defendant, who was anchored in the above common fishing market, was in custody with F, etc., the crew of the vessel, together with F, G, H, I, and I.

B. Defendant A3

The defendant owns the "Yho Lake", which is the designation of two-boats of X fishery belonging to the victim B, C, etc.

At around 09:00 on June 10, 2006, the Defendant received 1,100,000 won of the market price of 11 boxes, which was embezzled by seafarers, such as A1, from the above '92X' to the 'UFS' located in the Young-do, Busan, using the above transit line, even though he was aware that it is an stolen, he received 1,00,000 won of the market price as the transportation cost, and transported it to the 'UFS' located in the Busan, Young-do.

From January 27, 2006 to March 2, 2007, the Defendant transported the total amount of KRW 7,300,000,000 for the market price of the 73 boxes owned by the victims that were embezzled by the seafarers of X fishery, by means of such a method as 10 times in total, from January 27, 2006 to March 2, 2007, to the above 7,30,000,000 for the total market price of the 10 boxes of the 10 boxes of the 10,000,000, using the above line.

Accordingly, the Defendant transported stolen goods.

2. Determination

Defendant A1 and A2 have taken place the same quantity as the summary of the above facts charged. However, the growth of the above Defendants brought about was permitted to bring the vessel to the captain or the crew as a non-product catch generated during the operation of the vessel. Defendant A3 was actually transporting the said vessel from the captain or the crew, or on the above grounds, the above growth vessels were not stolen and denied each of the above facts charged by asserting that they were not stolen.

However, each police officer's interrogation protocol on the Defendants, E, D, F, G, etc., denies its content in this court, denies its content as a police officer's interrogation protocol on their co-offenders, or it is not acknowledged by the original person's statement as evidence. The police officer's interrogation protocol on J consented to the defendants' testimony as evidence. The prosecutor's statement on D's testimony is not admissible because it denies the actual authenticity of the part corresponding to the above facts charged as witness in the court and the witness's assertion, and it was not proven that the prosecutor's testimony was made without prior approval of the captain, but it was not proven that the prosecutor's testimony on the grounds that it was made without permission of the captain's and the captain's consent to the above facts charged. In addition, in light of the contents of the prior prosecutor's statement on D's testimony, it is difficult to conclude that the prosecutor's testimony was made without permission of the captain's and the captain's consent to the above facts charged, and it is difficult to see that the Defendants' testimony was made without permission.

In addition, the owner B and C, who did not receive any investigation at all during the investigation process, obtained the confirmation document submitted to this court and testimony in this court that they suffered damage to the livelihood of the crew, or granted the comprehensive authority to use the goods that do not amount to one box even if they are commodities, as a result of the crew's anti-concept, the gift of the company and the employees of the company and the company, and the accident at the time of the abortion, etc., and if the captain specifically reported the quantity to be used as anti-concing, etc. when entering the port at the port at the bar, they agreed to do so, and all the births identified in the above facts charged clearly permitted their seafarers to use as counter-conciling, etc.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Go Jae-in