Defendant 1 and 6

Prosecutor, Defendant 1 and 2

Park Ho-young et al.

Law Firm Newro Law Firm, Attorneys Yoon Byung-gu et al.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2008 Godan11 Decided June 23, 2008

Of the judgment of the court below, the part on Defendant Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (Defendant 6) excluding the part on the charge of lawsuit and the remaining part on the cost of lawsuit

Defendant 1’s imprisonment with prison labor of two years and six months and fine of two million won, Defendant 2’s imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months, Defendant 3’s imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months and fine of twenty million won, Defendant 4’s imprisonment with prison labor of eight months, Defendant 5’s imprisonment with prison labor of eight months and fine of ten million won, Defendant 5’s imprisonment without prison labor of eight months and fine of eight months and fine of ten million won, and Defendant Hebeft Ship Co., Ltd. (Defendant 7) shall be punished by a fine of thirty million won.

When Defendant 1, 3, and 5 did not pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 50,000 won into one day.

The number of days of detention prior to the pronouncement of the judgment below shall be 182 days each to Defendant 1, and the above imprisonment shall be included in Defendant 2, respectively.

Defendant Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd.’s appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) Grounds for appeal by a prosecutor;

(1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to the acquittal part)

(A) The part on Defendant 2

According to Defendant 6 Samsung Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Heavy Industries”), Defendant 2 is the actual manager of the fleet of this case. The lower court acknowledged that Defendant 2 had a duty of care to prepare for an emergency grave on or after December 7, 2007, which was lost at the port of this case, and had a duty of care to implement such emergency grave after December 7, 2007, but determined that Defendant 2 did not have a duty of care to direct navigation of the captain of Samsung 1 (a barge with a gross tonnage of 11,828 tons loaded with a 300t Maritime Track, and a barge; hereinafter “subsidiary”) who is capable of taking emergency grave measures. The lower court did not have a duty of care to avoid an accident and take measures against Defendant 2.

In addition, as long as there is negligence prior to the failure to take emergency measures at timely time, the best measures are taken to avoid accidents. Therefore, even though the bottom is identified in advance and the depth of the water and the poppy to the extent that it can have the ability to strike (it is sufficiently possible to grasp the bottom low quality and the depth only with the gPS displayer and the sea even after the scoper is cut), it is obvious failure to take emergency measures so that the stamper of the length, which is insufficient to 5.5 in the form of free scoping method, was cut down without any prior preparation.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted Defendant 2 on the ground that Defendant 2 did not have a position to direct towing navigation and did not have violated the duty of care to avoid collision. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(B) The part on Defendant 1’s violation of the Seafarers’ Act

Before the collision occurred, the court below found Defendant 1 guilty of the facts charged that “BEI SPR IT (hereinafter “HE”) did not communicate with the SPR IT but entered the log book in a false manner as Hubehh on December 7, 2007.” The court below found Defendant 1’s statement at the court of the lower court and the result of the voice appraisal by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office at the court of the first instance on December 7, 2007, following Defendant 4’s statement at the court of the lower court and the result of the voice appraisal by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, it was difficult to recognize Defendant 1’s intentional act because there was no big difference between the time indicated in the log book and the actual time of communication.”

However, the result of the voice appraisal by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office does not recognize the identity between Defendant 1's voice and the voice recorded in the Large Regional Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Traffic Control Center (hereinafter "Largesan VTS"), and in the event of mutual communication during the voyage, Defendant 1 did not express his name first, and Defendant 1 reversed his statement after division of conversation with Defendant 4. In light of the above, even if Defendant 1's intention was recognized as to Defendant 1's false entry in the log-book, the judgment of the court below denying the intention on the remaining log-book which recognized Defendant 1's mutual communication with Hehohoho Lake, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding of facts.

(C) The part as to Defendant 3, 5, and Husti Ship Corporation

(1) Degree of duty of care in He/she suffers from He/she;

Although it is reasonable to deem that Hubeho has a high level of duty of care corresponding thereto, since the unique characteristics of the anchoring place and the characteristics of the oil tanker with crude oil are the oil tanker, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or legal principles that the degree of duty of care in Hebebeh is not different from the normal anchorage line.

(2) The point of time to risk collision with the tugboat group.

The existence of collision risk situations in marine transportation is significant in that it imposes positive cooperation obligations on both vessels to avoid collision under international rules and the Sea Traffic Safety Act, and where both vessels conflict, the court below did not make an explicit decision on whether there is fault on the ship. It is interpreted that the court below, around December 7, 2007, determined that Hube-ho and the tugboat are in danger of collision at least 302,640 tons of crude oil, which is a large oil tanker with approximately 146,868 tons loaded with about 302,640 tons of crude oil at the time of anchorage, and that at least 40 minutes of the tugboat from the point of time to the south side of the fleet, including the preparation of the engine to reduce the anchor line 9,000 tons of oil at the time of anchorage, and thus, the court below should at least change the direction of collision to the point of time to prevent collision with the vessel's ability to move from the point of time to the south side of view that the fleet should lose its ability to take action to prevent collision.

③ As to causation

The court below held that the causal relationship was severed between Defendant 5 (hereinafter “Defendant 5”) and Defendant 3’s negligence, since the direct cause of the collision accident of this case occurred due to unexpected result of the towing wave, and thus, the causal relationship was severed between Defendant 5 (hereinafter “Defendant 5”) and Defendant 3’s negligence. However, Defendant 5’s negligence on the part of Defendant 5, who neglected the duty of boundary, did not take any effective measures to prevent the collision that Defendant 3, who was listed on the missionary mission, would merely pass through the tugboat at the vicinity of the fleet, and the collision risk was not resolved, and the fleet did not take necessary measures, such as a traffic and emergency mooring, etc., in the situation immediately before the collision risk increases, and eventually, the collision risk was realized due to the occurrence of the collision and the fault of Defendant 5 and Defendant 3, which was closely connected with each other. Thus, the causal relationship cannot be deemed to be terminated due to the other’s fault.

④ The omission of finding the facts charged against Defendant 3

Of the negligence charged against Defendant 3, the lower court neglected the judgment on the charges by pointing out the following: (a) failure to comply with the seafarer’s duty to educate and manage seafarers; (b) failure to comply with the judgment on the risk of collision; and (c) failure to comply with the duty to avoid the collision with the other vessel; and (d) failure to take part of the measures to be taken by Defendant 3 to attract and move the poppy while entering the exclusive soppy or poppy; or (b) failure to leave the scene by separating the poppy from the scene; (c) failure to take the measures to immediately take the command of the soppy and the soppy from the scene; and (d) failure to decide on the charges by taking part of the measures taken by

(5) Whether the institution was in a preparatory state.

According to Article 3-1(5)7 of Part VIII of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (hereinafter “STSW Convention”), where a ship is anchored at an ocean-going anchorage which is not shielded, the captain requires the engine room to prepare the main engine and other machinery. The head of the agency shall maintain the main body and auxiliary body as a preparatory state in compliance with the order of the mission pursuant to Articles 82 and 83 of Part III-2, and there are provisions to the same effect as recommendations for the navigational watch of the International Maritime Organization.

The aforementioned provision purported to maintain an institution that can immediately use the institution because a vessel anchored in an unshielded place is exposed to the risk of collision with a vessel at all times, so that it can not immediately escape from the danger of collision. As such, “institutional preparation status” means not simply an institution’s state of vision, but a situation where sufficient power can be transmitted to the vessel when the risk of collision occurs. Defendant 3 suspended the main engine of Hebee on December 6, 2007 and ordered the institution head to be in a state where normal operation of the institution is possible if the main engine was notified one hour prior to the engine’s actual operation at the time of the mission. In light of the foregoing, the lower court, at around 20:00, replaced the e-mail valve installed in the main engine at the time of the main engine with the e-mail schedule at the time of the occurrence of the collision with the e-mail engine at the time of the collision with the e-mail engine at the time of the immediately preceding operation of the e-mail engine.

(6) Whether the risk of collision has been reduced due to poppy strawing.

The court below determined as follows: (a) from 06:17 to 06:57, he used extreme speed engine and stop, and (b) caused the instant accident to be caused by the collision between 3.5 to 4 of poppy chain, (c) added 100 meters of the length of poppy chain, and (d) was moving into the southwest due to the strong south and southwest at the time; (b) eventually, the tugboat was driving away from the direction of the fleet at the time; (c) as a result, the tugboat was taking measures to rapidly increase the output while changing the course to the large angle in order to avoid the collision; and (d) during that process, the fleet was able to reduce the collision between 4 and 3 of the Poppy, not to reduce the collision between 4 and 3 of the danger of the collision.

(7) Whether a collision may be avoided by using an exclusive dedicated agency after the towing of a towing line.

Defendant 3 appears to have been aware of the fact that the towing line had been sold late at around 06:58. Nevertheless, Defendant 3 used the towing line from around 06:58 to about 07:04 to about 6 minutes, and from around 07:05 to 07:12, there was no continuous anti-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-

(2) Unreasonable sentencing (defendant 4)

Defendant 4 was negligent in failing to take appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of an accident, such as having already violated the shipbuilding duty, such as coming from the steering house at around 05:30, and not raising the engine output even after the towing line cutting. Defendant 4 was directly related to the negligence of the above Defendant and the instant accident, and the degree of violation of the duty of care is significant. As such, Defendant 4’s sentence of the lower court that imposed only one year of imprisonment on Defendant 4 solely on the ground that Defendant 4 is a subordinate tugboat captain is unreasonable.

B. Grounds for appeal by Defendant 1, 4, and Samsung Heavy Industries

(1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(A) Whether there is liability under the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act

Despite the negligence on the side of Hebehohohoho Lake or even if common negligence is recognized, the court below held that the case was examined only in the aspect of destroying a ship by occupational negligence, and that the responsibility for marine pollution was erroneous without examining and determining the predictability of marine pollution on the side of the tugboat, and that even if the weather situation or the characteristics of the anchorage at the time are higher than the duty of care of Hebehohohoho, the court below did not conduct any deliberation and determination on it at all or did not increase the duty of care. This is a violation of the law of misunderstanding the legal principles as to negligence of the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act, incomplete deliberation and determination, inconsistent reasoning, and omission of judgment.

(B) As to the predictability of the towing line on the side of Hebea and the possibility of avoiding the outcome of the conflict

According to the result of the court's appraisal of a tugboat in the court below, the tugboat itself has no defect in the standard, and the tugboat strike has been caused by external factors, such as dynamic load, etc., and the tugboat's failure to navigation under yellow River is well known as well as Hebee, and thus the predictability of the tugboat's strike should be determined based on the same criteria as the tugboat's and Hebee. However, the court below determined that the tugboat could not have predicted it with regard to Hebee's strike, and therefore, it erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to predictability, and the reasoning of the judgment.

In addition, the court below recognized that the tugboat used 650RM despite Defendant 4's maximum output of T-3 (T-3 gross tonnage towing by Defendant 4 as captain; hereinafter "T-3"), which was 750RM, before the tugboat did not take an effective and easy and effective preventive measure against the risk of collision. The court below found that the tugboat did not recognize the negligence of T-3 of T-3 of the fleet, even if it did not recognize the negligence of H-4 of the fleet, if it applied the standards applied to H-3 of the tugboat, it did not cause any error of law in light of the reasoning that it did not recognize the negligence of H-4 of the fleet, and that the output of T-4 of the output of T-3 of the T-4 of the T-3 of the fleet was the largest output of the accident, and that it did not actually cause any further risk of using the engine.

(C) The causation between the fault of the tugboat and the marine pollution

Even if the common negligence of the tugboat and Hube-ho, which occurred on the port side of Hebe-ho, due to the collision between barge and Hebe-ho, is recognized, the expansion of marine pollution is likely to block the inflow of air into the luke tank, but rather, influorous gas should not be prevented, and oil should be transferred to the empty space of another luke tank, and the ship should be prevented by the negligence of Hebe-ho, but the court below did not make any decision thereon at all, and recognized only the fault of the fleet as to the whole marine pollution. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the omission of judgment and causation.

(D) Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s assertion of mistake of facts

① Defendant 1 is the captain of Samsung T-5 (hereinafter “T-5”), who is a gross tonnage of 292 tons only, and the above defendant 2 is the captain of the barge of 11,828 tons loaded with the 3,000 tons maritime tugboat, and the captain of the fleet of this case composed of Samsung T-5 and T-3, the captain of the fleet of this case, who is the overall commander of the fleet of the fleet of this case. Defendant 1 was in charge of the operation, work, etc. of the fleet. Defendant 1 did not follow the direction and supervision of the fleet of this case, which is the captain of the fleet of the fleet of this case. Defendant 2 was not guilty of the collision with the captain of this case on December 7, 2007, on the ground that there was no error of law by misapprehending the first direction of the defendant 2, who was the captain of the fleet of the fleet of this case, on the ground that there was no responsibility to avoid collision with the captain of this case.

② Even if Defendant 1 was responsible for household affairs, it was announced on December 7, 2007 at the time of the accident on the sea near the Yellow Sea, which is the place where the accident occurred, and there was a sudden change in weather near the weather to the point of entry into force at the same time, so it cannot be said that Defendant 1 did not continue navigation or make an emergency grave. Even if a barge was parked on the sea due to sand, there was a danger of collision between the fleets and the tugboat. Even if the barge was anchored on the project, the fleet could prevent other dangerous situations by blocking the passage of other vessels. Above all, in the situation where the 4-meter of the barge was merely 2.4 meters at the time of the accident, the crew did not criticize Defendant 1 because it was difficult for him to have access to the mass, making it difficult for him to have access to the mass.

③ In addition, considering weather conditions at the time, noise in the tugboat mission, the number of times of call on the side of large VTS and Hebeehohoho Lake, the size of voice, the mixed line of VHF itself, and the situation where Defendant 1 was punished to prevent the risk of collision with the anchored line at the time or on the shore, Defendant 1 did not perform his fiduciary duty, and there is no causal link between Defendant 1’s non-performance of fiduciary duty and the occurrence of the instant accident.

④ During the fleet’s attempt to avoid a port, Samsung T-5 and Samsung T-3 were in close vicinity, and the strength of the fleet’s strike of Samsung T-5 was weak, and after which the fleet experienced a strong wind and high wave with strong tri T-3 and barge, the towing line was cut due to a strong dynamic load in Samsung T-5, which was inevitable in the process of making its best to shipbuilding in bad weather conditions.

⑤ Since a barge and T-3 limitation of operation did not violate the duty to display limitation of operation since the barge and T-3 limitation of operation, there was a light of the barge and T-3, and thus, there was no causation between Samsung T-5 and the accident in this case.

6) Defendant 1’s conviction of Defendant 1’s violation of the Seafarers’ Act was unlawful because it was true that Defendant 1 had provided Hebeh and her communication, and it was merely an error in the time.

(E) Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle on New Year’s Day

Even if Defendant 1 continued to sail in bad weather and the occurrence of the collision accident of this case occurred, it is the best measure to prevent the safety of tugboat teams and crew members and other accidents, and it is not illegal as it constitutes an emergency evacuation.

In addition, Defendant 1 had no choice but to follow the direction of Defendant 2 on the act of departure, continuation of navigation, give-way, and funeral. Therefore, Defendant 1’s act is unlikely to expect.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

In light of the above circumstances, in light of the overall circumstances where the collision accident of this case occurred, and Defendant 1 is the first offender, the sentence of the lower court against Defendant 1, 4, and Samsung Heavy Industries is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The facts charged prior to the change in the indictment against Defendant 3, 5, and Hubeft Ship Co., Ltd.

Defendant 3 is the captain of Hebehoho (146,868t) who is a crude oil transporter, and Defendant 5 is the first class mate of Hebeho-ho, and Defendant 3 and Defendant 5 are the persons under the direction and supervision of Defendant Hebeta Ship Co., Ltd. (HEBEI SPPING CO. LTD; hereinafter “HE”) who is the owner of Hebeho-ho, the vessel owner of Hebeho-ho.

피고인 3, 5는 2007. 12. 6. 19:18경 충남 태안군 원북면 신도 남서방 6마일 해상(36-52.5N, 126-03.0E)에서 다음 날 14:00로 예정된 도선사의 승선 및 대산항 입항 일정에 맞추기 위해 허베이호를 정박하게 되었는바, 위 지점은 대산항 출입항로에서 약 13.4마일, 북쪽 장안서 통항분리수역과 약 15마일, 남쪽 가대암 통항분리수역과 약 7마일가량 떨어져 있어 대산항, 태안항, 평택항 등으로 입출항 하는 선박의 항행이 빈번한 곳이고, 허베이호는 원유 약 302,640㎘(약 263,944t)을 적재한 단일선체 선박으로서 해상 충돌사고 발생시 대규모의 해양오염 사태가 발생할 우려가 있을 뿐만 아니라 앞서 본 바와 같이 기상이 계속 악화되고 있는 상태에서 피고인들은 공모하여, 피고인 5는 육안 및 알파 레이다(ARPA radar) 등 항해장비를 이용하여 근접하여 진행하는 선박이 있는지를 잘 살펴 허베이호와의 충돌위험성을 파악하고, 선박자동식별시스템(AIS)을 이용하여 신속하게 상대 선박에 대한 정보를 파악한 다음 관제소 및 상대선박에 교신하여 상대선박으로 하여금 충분한 거리를 두고 안전하게 통과하게 하거나, 상대선박이 항해능력을 잃은 것으로 의심될 경우 신속히 허베이호의 기관을 가동하고 닻을 올려 정박 장소로부터 이동하는 등 충돌을 피할 수 있도록 즉시 선장을 호출하여야 할 업무상 주의의무가 있음에도 이를 위반하여, 컴퓨터로 개인업무를 하는 등 견시의무를 제대로 이행하지 아니하여 예인선단의 비정상적 항행경로를 전혀 인식하지 못함으로써 예인선단과의 충돌위험성을 파악하지 못하였을 뿐만 아니라 그 상황에서도 관제소 및 예인선단과 VHF를 통하여 교신하거나 즉시 선장을 호출하지 않고 예인선단과 허베이호와의 거리가 약 1마일 남은 06:05경에서야 뒤늦게 선장을 호출하여 신속하고 적절한 피항 협력동작을 취하게 하지 못한 업무상 과실이 있고, 피고인 3은 위와 같이 차폐되지 아니한 장소에 정박한 허베이호의 선장으로서 주기관을 준비상태에 두어야 하고, 당직사관으로 하여금 위와 같은 정박지의 특수성을 주지시켜 위험사항이 발생할 경우 즉시 선장을 호출하도록 교육·관리하여야 하며, 당직사관의 호출을 받고 선교에 올라온 경우 즉시 당직사관으로부터 상황을 정확하게 보고 받고, 계속하여 접근하고 있는 상대 선박과 지속적으로 교신을 시도하여 충돌사고 방지를 위하여 협력할 의무가 있으며, 상대선박과 교신이 되지 않는 등 상대 선박의 항해능력에 의심이 있는 경우 충돌위험 상황으로 간주하여 신속히 닻을 들거나 닻줄을 일부 들어올린 상태에서 닻을 끌며 후진하거나, 닻줄을 분리하여 닻을 버린 후 현장에서 이탈하는 등 충돌을 피하기 위한 적극적 조치를 취할 업무상 주의의무가 있음에도 불구하고 위와 같은 주의의무에 위반하여 위 장소에 정박한 후인 2007. 12. 6. 19:44경 허베이호의 기관을 정지시키고, 당직사관인 피고인 5 및 실습항해사 공소외 2에게 위와 같은 정박장소의 특수성 등을 주지시키지 아니하고, 선장 호출이 필요한 위험상황에 대한 교육·관리를 제대로 이행하지 아니한 과실로 피고인 5가 당직사관으로서의 견시의무를 태만히 함으로써 충분한 시간을 두고 예인선단 및 관제소와 교신을 하거나, 육안 및 알파레이더 등 항해장비를 통하여 예인선단의 진행경로를 파악한 후 신속히 닻을 들어올려 허베이호를 이동시키는 적절한 조치를 취하지 못한 상태로 06:05경 뒤늦게 피고인 3을 호출하게 하여 사고 위험이 고조된 상태에서, 2007. 12. 7. 06:06경 선교에 올라와서도 피고인 5로부터 현장 상황 및 향후 위험성에 대하여 신속하게 보고받지 아니하고, 예인선단과의 충돌위험 상황이었음에도 단순히 예인선단이 허베이호의 선수를 기준으로 약 270m 거리를 두고 통과하는 상황으로 섣불리 판단한 나머지 닻줄을 3.5절 가량 풀어주면서 극저속 후진 및 기관 정지를 단속적으로 반복하여 약 100m의 거리를 확보하는데 그치는 등 충돌위험 상황을 근본적으로 해결하는데 도움이 되지 않는 소극적인 조치만을 취했을 뿐 닻을 끌면서 뒤로 이동하거나 신속히 닻줄을 분리한 다음 닻을 버려 현장에서 이탈하는 등 충돌위험 상황을 회피할 유효·적절한 조치를 취하지 아니한 업무상 과실이 있는바, 위와 같은 피고인들의 과실로 인하여 2007. 12. 7. 07:06경 신도 남서방 6마일 해상(36-52.1N, 126-03.1E)에서 삼성 T-5호와 연결된 예인줄이 끊어져 허베이호 방향으로 약 600m 가량 밀려온 부선의 선수 크레인 붐대 하단 후크와 허베이호의 선수 마스터 부분이 부딪히고, 계속하여 부선이 허베이호의 좌현 쪽으로 밀려가면서 위 선박의 좌현 선체 부분을 부선의 선수 좌현 모서리 부분으로 순차 들이받게 하는 등 총 9곳을 충격하여 2등 항해사 사무일레 등 선원 27명이 현존하는 허베이호의 선수 마스트, 위성통신 안테나, 항해등 등을 파손하고 좌현 1번, 3번, 5번 원유탱크 3곳에 파공이 발생케 하여 위 선박을 파괴함과 동시에, 적재 중이던 원유 약 12,547㎘(10,900t)를 인근 해상에 배출케 하였다.

7 (Hubeon Co., Ltd.) committed a violation against Defendant 3 and Defendant 5, who is an employee, in relation to the business of 7 (Hubeon Co., Ltd.) as described above.

(b) Amendments to indictment by prosecutors;

(1) Before making a judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor and the Defendants, the prosecutor examined ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for permission to amend the indictment and applicable provisions to Defendant 3,5,7 (Hubeon Co., Ltd.), and applied for permission to change the applicable provisions to Defendant 1, 2, and 4 as follows, and this court permitted this. The part of the judgment of the court below, which is based on the premise of the initial indictment, is no longer maintained in this respect.

However, the prosecutor and the grounds for appeal by the above defendants on the premise of the facts charged prior to the amendment are still subject to party members' determination within the scope of the modified facts charged. As such, the court below's determination as to this, and the court's determination as to the major issues among the modified facts charged (defendant 3, 5, and 7 (No. 7) is about new facts not dealt with in the trial proceedings of the court below. Thus, the above amendment of the indictment is alleged unlawful. Thus, the above contents of the collision accident of this case stated in the facts charged by specifying the above defendants' duty of care for the measures to avoid collision and pollution response measures, so they do not infringe the identity in the existing facts and basic facts, and it does not seem that the above duty of care was deliberated by the court of the court of the court of the court, and therefore, it does not seem to infringe the above defendants' rights of defense. On the other hand, the prosecutor examined the crime of destroying a ship by occupational negligence and the violation of the Prevention of Marine Pollution at the court of the first time, and it is reasonable to view that the above crimes are different from the contents and the period of substantive violations.

(2) The amendment of indictment

The prosecutor deleted “Article 40 of the Criminal Act” from the applicable provisions of the Act to Defendant 1, changed “Article 40 of the Criminal Act” from the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act to “Article 37, Article 38 of the Criminal Act,” and changed the facts charged against Defendant 5, 3, and 7 (Hube Stock Company) not more than 10 pages of the facts charged in the indictment (the contents of the change shall be treated under bottom) as follows.

“2. The co-offenders of Defendant 3 and 5

On December 6, 2007, at least 19:18, Defendant 3 and 5 anchored Hexae-be at the sea (36-52.5N, 126-03.0E) on the 6-day southwestwest-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (36-52.5N, 126-03.0E) from the 14:0 following day, to meet the boarding of pilots and the entry into a major port. The above branch was at anchor of Hexa-be-be in order to meet the navigation schedule of the pilot. The above branch was at least 13.4 E-day from the port of entry into a major port, approximately 15 days from the traffic separation zone of the northwestwest-gu, and approximately 7-day off from the southwest-gu, Taenam-do, Taenam-do, and where there is frequent traffic congestion between the Defendants, as well as about 302, 462,464, and 94,00 tons of crude oil.

A. Defendant 5

From 04:00 on December 7, 2007 to 08:00, the Defendant is obligated to immediately leave the captain so as to avoid collision, such as operating an engine under Hebe subparagraph and moving the anchor from the anchored place, without delay, if the Defendant is suspected of having lost navigational capacity. The Defendant is obliged to immediately leave the captain so that it can avoid collision, such as operating the engine under Hebe subparagraph and moving the anchor from the anchored place.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the above duty of care and exercised by the tugboat from 04:0 to 04:45, while leaving the tugboat from 05 to 05 to 04:0, the Defendant did not immediately leave the tugboat to 1.87 miles (based on Samsung A-1) due to a strong wind and tidal wave, and did not take an appropriate measure to ensure the safe operation of the tugboat from 00:0 to 05:0, the Defendant did not take an appropriate measure to ensure the safe operation of the tugboat from 20:0 to 4:0, the Defendant did not take an approach to the tugboat from 0:0 to 6:5:0 to 0, while the tugboat did not take an appropriate measure to ensure the safe operation of the tugboat from 0:0 to 6:0, the Defendant did not take an urgent situation of collision with the tugboat to 0:0 to 6:0 to 4:0, the captain did not take an approach to the tugboat from 04:0 to 6:00 to 6:0.

B. Defendant 3

The Defendant, as the captain of the Hebee, anchored at a place where the passage of a vessel is frequent as above, shall be in the state of preparation for the head of the agency. If any danger occurs by allowing the watchkeeping officer to take advantage of the special nature of the anchorage as above, he shall educate and manage the captain immediately. If the officer on duty goes out and goes out of the watchkeeping officer, he shall receive accurate report on the situation from the watchkeeping officer immediately, and continuously attempt to communicate with the other vessel and cooperate to prevent the collision accident, and if there is doubt about the navigation capacity of the other vessel, such as the other vessel's failure to go through the collision risk situation, the Defendant is obliged to take active measures to avoid collision or escape from duty of care at the scene, such as: (a) if there is a concern about the navigation capacity of the other vessel, the navigation capacity of the vessel shall be considered as the collision risk situation; (b) if the anchor is resisted by leaving the anchor engine with the strong after leaving the anchor line; and (c) if the anchor commander gets out of duty of care, he shall take active measures to avoid collision.

Nevertheless, on December 6, 207, 207, after anchoring at a place where navigation of vessels is frequent, the Defendant was unable to stop an engine of 19:4,000, and did not take necessary measures to remove the anchor from the port of 3rd, for the first time after the anchoring of the vessel, and did not take necessary measures to remove the anchor from the port of 00: The Defendant did not take proper measures to remove the anchor from the port of 7 meters after the anchoring of the vessel at the port of 6: The Defendant’s failure to take necessary measures to remove the anchor at the port of 0 meters, such as a so-called stop stop of the vessel, without considering the characteristics of the anchor and dangerous cargo at the port of 6: The Defendant’s failure to take necessary measures to remove the vessel at the port of 0 meters after the anchoring of the vessel at the port of 6: The Defendant’s failure to take proper measures to remove the vessel at the port of 0 meters after the declineing of the vessel at the port of 5 meters.

C. Joint negligence by Defendant 3 and Defendant 5 (the negligence with regard to the proliferation of oil outflow)

In addition, Defendant 3 is well aware that the captain of Hebeho-ho, a large oil tanker, and Defendant 5, as the cargo manager of this vessel, are well aware of the structure and characteristics of Hebe-ho-ho-ho, and that enormous damage would occur if the oil is leaked. Thus, in the situation where Hebe-ho is anticipated to collision with the barge, he must take measures to avoid collision and when the collision occurs, he shall take all necessary measures to prevent the oil discharge immediately.

In other words, if we were to take necessary measures such as preventing the oil leakage tank from being 1 to 4 off-to-date oil spills and to prevent the oil leakage tank from being 5 to 20 meters off-to-date oil spills and to prevent the oil leakage tank from being 1 to 3 minutes off-to-date oil spills, and to prevent the oil leakage tank from being 5 minutes off-to-date oil spills from being 1 to 3 minutes off-to-date oil leakage tanks. Nevertheless, the Defendants violated the above duty of care, and are located at approximately 5-7 meters off-to-dates and 1 to 3 meters off-to-dates and 10 meters off-to-dates on the surface of the vessel.

Ultimately, due to the above personal negligence and joint negligence of the Defendants, around 07:06 on December 7, 2007, the line connected to Samsung T-5 is cut at the sea (36-52.1N, 126-03.1E) on the 6-day southwest-do (36-52.1N, 126-03.1E) on December 7, 2007, and approximately 600 meters away from the bottom of the boom boom boom boom, which is the players of the barge, and the boom of the boom boom boom boom, and the 30-day 20-day 27 crew members, including the above 27rd crew members, destroyed the above vessel, 30-day 30-day 20-day 27 crew members, and destroyed the above vessel, 50-day 30-day 25-party 27 crew members, etc.

5. The defendant 7 (Licensed Corporation)'s liability for double punishment

Defendant 3 and Defendant 5, an employee, committed a violation with respect to the duties of the Defendant, as described above.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

A. The part on Defendant 2

(1) Facts charged

Defendant 2 is the leader of the fleet comprised of Samsung T-5 (292t), T-3 (2) (213t), the tugboat towing the fleet, the captain of the fleet loaded with 3,000t 3,00t Maritime Co., Ltd., and the leader of the fleet comprised of Samsung A-1, the fleet, the fleet, and Samsung A-1, the fleet.

On December 6, 2007, Defendant 2: (a) exchanged information on weather conditions at the construction site in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon at the construction site; (b) discussed the issue of crew placement; and (c) the method of towing at the time of passing through a narrow waterway; and (d) led Defendant 2 to towed and depart from the tugboat at the destination of the Samsung Heavy Industries Samsung Shipbuilding located in the New-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City.

Defendant 2, as the captain of a barge on board eight seafarers, is expected to be affected by wind during navigation, due to the characteristics of a large towing with about 140 meters high of booms, and considering that the length of the tugboat exceeds about 700 meters, Defendant 2 should closely grasp the weather conditions of the entire navigation period in advance and promptly ascertain whether weather deterioration and danger occur, and discuss measures accordingly with each captain of the control station, the counterpart vessel and the fleet using a ultra-shortwave radio telephone (HF), as well as discuss whether the towing capacity is restricted or lost by a strong wind, etc., and discuss related measures such as navigation with the captain of the fleet, such as navigation or emergency mooring, etc., at an appropriate time by grasping potential risk factors that may be anticipated by faithfully performing the boundary duty, and avoid collision with the captain of the fleet at the time of an emergency situation.

Nevertheless, on December 6, 2007, Defendant 2 violated the above duty of care, and obtained text messages on meteorological aggravation from Nonindicted 3, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 1, a stock company, (13ms, 1-2ms per day, maximum wind, 13ms/s, 1.5-2ms on the following day), but decided to leave the port inevitably without any particular discussion about weather conditions with Defendant 1, 4, etc., and on the 7th day of the same month in order to prevent collision between the captain of the ship and the ship at the end of the same 6mal wave by failing to take proper measures to prevent collision between the captain of the ship and the ship at the end of the same 5m wave or by failing to take proper measures to prevent collision between the captain of the ship at the end of the same month and the 3m wave, and by failing to take proper measures to prevent collision with the captain of the ship at the end of the same 6mal wave.

Ultimately, the lines connected to Samsung T-5 on December 7, 2007 due to personal and joint negligence of the defendant 2 and the defendant 1 and the defendant 4 were cut, around 06:52 on December 7, 2007, and around 600 meters high in the direction of Hubeho, and around 07:06, on the 6-day northwest-west, west-west, west-west, west-west, west-west 60 days north (N 36-52.1, east 126-03.1, east 126-03) on the 350-distance west-west, the 1stm of the fore part of the fore part of the above ship was destroyed by 30-day cargo tanks, 10-day 5-day crew members, and 27-day 5-day crew members, and 3-day crew members, etc., 27-day, 3-day, 5-day.

(2) The judgment of the court below

The court below held that among the crew members of Samsung A-1, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant 2 was in the position of directing towing and Samsung T-5, and it is difficult to recognize that the captain of the barge was in the position of leading towing and that there was no mate and radar in the barge, and that it cannot be used for the purpose of boundaries because the distance is not indicated. Thus, the captain of the barge was in the position of directing the tugboat or he was in the overall command of the tugboat at the time of navigation. However, there was no instruction that Defendant 2 recommended that two of the crew members of Samsung Samsung T-1 should navigate the barge and Samsung T-5, or that the entry of the regulations on navigation in the ship cannot be seen as having been in the position of leading towing navigation. Even if the captain failed to fully strike the 12 Section 5 Section 12 after cutting the tugboat, it cannot be seen as having violated the duty of due care at the time of collision, and thus, it cannot be seen as having sufficiently avoided the collision between the captain and the defendant 2 at the time of leaving the bottom.

(3) Judgment of the court below

(A) Whether there was a duty of care to command navigation and avoid accidents

Although a barge is included in a ship as prescribed by the Ship Act, it is basically a non-powered vessel without the application of the Seafarers Act and the Ship Personnel Act, and cannot navigate with its own ability as a tugboat. Therefore, it cannot be said that the barge has a duty of care to anticipate the risks during navigation and avoid the realization of such risks.

However, if Defendant 2 does not merely stay in the position of the captain of a barge at the time of towing navigation but is in fact in the position of directing a towing navigation, or in the position where Defendant 1, a main tugboat captain, can assist in navigation and demand correction against Defendant 1’s navigation failure, Defendant 2 is not limited to the position of the captain of a barge, he/she is obliged to pay the duty of care on the voyage.

In light of the records, a barge is installed with navigation equipment gPS PS PS PP Ppl and a ultra-shortwave radio telephone (VHF). The GPS PS PP PP Ppppppors only indicate the present location and navigation of the barge, and cannot identify the location or distance of the other ship like the radar, and VHF used the barge for the purpose of communicating between the tugboat and the work ship during the salvaging work, and VHF did not board the barge, and the barge was towed by the towing method, and thus the boundaries by the engine located in the driver's room is not significant in terms of ordinary towing navigation, and Defendant 2 cannot be viewed as the position of the navigation team in full view of the facts as above.

However, according to the above entry of the rules on safe navigation in the ship (3602 pages), the statement at the court of first instance, and each investigation agency of the non-indicted 5 and 6, the rules on safe navigation prepared by the defendant Samsung Heavy Industries stipulate that the captain shall comply with the orders of the head of the ship when an emergency situation occurs. The above rules stipulate matters to be careful in overall navigation from the preparation for navigation before departure to the port, narrow waterway, and navigation. Both the defendant 2 and the defendant 1 are superior to the defendant 1 corporation's employees who are non-indicted 1 corporation, and the defendant 2 worked as the captain of Samsung Heavy Heavy Industries prior to the arrival of the barge. The defendant 2 knew that the captain was not in charge of contact with the Samsung Heavy Industries and the date of departure to the point of view that it was not possible to view that the captain of Samsung Heavy Heavy Industries's duty to cooperate with the captain of the Samsung Heavy Heavy Heavy Industries was no more than the defendant 2's general officer responsible for navigation from the court of first instance to the date of departure.

(B) Whether an emergency grave was negligent

Although Defendant 2 was in a position to carry out an emergency grave at his own independent judgment if he consulted with Defendant 1 or did not reach an agreement, the tugboat failed to sail to North Korea at around 05:30, and decided to return to the original sea route without an emergency grave even if it was difficult for Defendant 2 to continue sailing due to weather conditions, it would be deemed that Defendant 2 violated the duty of due care to avoid an accident.

In addition, according to the following: (a) whether Defendant 2 was negligent in failing to carry out an emergency grave at around 06:52, which was immediately after the line was cut, Nonindicted 4’s investigation agency and the court of the court below; (b) Nonindicted 7’s statement in the court of the court below; (c) Nonindicted 8’s statement in the investigation agency; and (d) the statement in the Incheon Maritime Safety Tribunal’s written ruling, etc., Defendant 2, upon contact with Defendant 1, instructed Defendant 1 to prepare a grave at around 07:0, and instructed Nonindicted 4 to prepare a grave at around 07:0; and (c) around 07:06, when the first collision, at least 6:3 minutes of the anchor line; (d) it was recognized that the anchor line was at least 2:3 minutes of the anchor line; and (e) Nonindicted 3-3’s towing force had been living, Defendant 2 could have been found to have been at the time of collision or collision with the sea bed.

(C) Sub-decisions

Thus, Defendant 2 had the duty of care to avoid an accident by making safe navigation in consultation with Defendant 1, a main tugboat captain, and caused the collision accident in violation of the duty of care to conduct an emergency grave in case of emergency where safe navigation is impossible. Nevertheless, the court below acquitted Defendant 2 on the ground that Defendant 2 did not have the duty of care to avoid navigation and accident. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The part on Defendant 1’s violation of the Seafarers’ Act

In light of the fact that Defendant 1’s voice and Defendant 1’s voice recorded in Taesan VTS as a result of the voice appraisal by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office could not be confirmed as to the identity of the voice recorded in Taesan VTS, but the similarity of Defendant 1’s voice and language characteristics was found, Defendant 4, and witness Nonindicted 6 also stated that Defendant 1 conspireds with Hubeh in the court of original trial, it appears that Defendant 1’s request was made to prepare and request engines and poppy seedlings by directly communicating with Hebeh. However, Defendant 1 appears to have failed to confirm the exact time at the time of the communication, and it appears that Defendant 1 could not enter accurate time of communication in the process of making an entry after the post-stoppy because it was difficult to view that Defendant 1 had intention to enter the log-book on this part in a false manner, and therefore, the prosecutor’s allegation in this part of this part is without merit.

C. The part on Defendant 3, 5, and 7 (Licensed Corporation)

(1) The judgment of the court below

The court below held that Defendant 5 neglected the duty of boundary due to Defendant 5's failure to keep a continuous boundary by radars and landings. However, even if Defendant 5 had a proper boundary, it can be determined that the fleet at around 05:50 on December 7, 2007, which had a risk of collision with Hube, even if Defendant 5 had a proper boundary, it is not possible to take action to avoid collision with the former and the latter, taking into account the time necessary to return Hubeho-ho and the time required to change her course and the distance until the changed course, it would not be possible to take action to avoid collision with the former and the latter. The accident at issue occurred due to the decrease in the risk of collision due to Defendant 3's actions to avoid collision and the rapid collision with Samsung T-5 on December 7, 2007, which led to the occurrence of a collision with the Defendant 5's duty to avoid collision.

In addition, the court below held that, if Defendant 3 was able to use an engine within 1 minute after he was able to avoid the operation of the engine after he was under the direction to avoid the operation of the engine, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of stopping the engine after anchoring the engine, and even if Defendant 3 was able to use the engine, it cannot be said that there was no further danger of collision between the fleet and Hubhoho Lake because the distance between the fleet and Hubho Lake was 0:30 on December 7, 2007 when the 1110 meters or more of the later engine was turned out, and the former engine could not be seen as being able to be able to avoid the collision, but it cannot be said that there was a decrease in the risk of collision because the former engine could not be seen as being able to be able to avoid the collision with the former engine for the purpose of avoiding the danger of collision, but it cannot be said that there was no further risk of collision with the latter.

(2) Judgment of the court below

(A) Determination on the point of risk of collision

(1) An anti-port register of the tugboat prior to the collision (see attached port register).

According to the records, at around 14:50 on December 6, 2007, the fleet maintained the scheduled sea route after its departure from the construction site of the Incheon Metropolitan Government, and unloaded to the south. However, on December 7, 2007, from 04:0 to 15m high speed, the fleet was pushed off to the southwest by the wind, and the fleet was pushed down to the southwest by 00 :5 : The fleet was determined to stop from the port of Incheon Western 5:0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 :0 : 5 :0 :0 :0 :0 : 5 :0 :0 :0 : 5 :00 : 1:0 : 5:00 : 6:0 : 5:0 : 1:00 : 5:0 :0 : 1:00 : 5:00 : 200 : 1:0,0000 :

(2) Point of collision risk.

According to the records, around 04:00 on December 7, 2007, the tugboat was at a distance recognizable to the land between the other party within the distance of Hebe and 3 miles, at around 04:45, at the time of trying to avoid a port, 1.87 miles, at around 05:30, when the tugboat was seized to the east, 1.4 miles, at around 05:50, when she waived the port, 1.37 miles (the base of the mother Samsung A-1) at around 04:45, when she was proceeding in the direction of proceeding without attempting to call a port, and at least 4:5, when the vessel was at least at the time of anchor at the time, at least 9:5, when the vessel was at the time of anchor, the vessel was at the time of anchor and at least 4:5, when the vessel was at the time of collision, the vessel was at least at the time of collision, and when the vessel was at least 9:40, when the vessel was at the time of collision.

On the other hand, from 04:45 to 05:50, a tugboat was seized to east, while proceeding to west, and the direction of operation from 05:30 to 05:50, as to whether the danger of collision between the two vessels can be seen to have been eliminated due to the above route, the tugboat attempted to tow to north, but was an abnormal situation that was seized to east due to the northwest wind. From 05:30 to 05:50, the tugboat’s players were going back to west or to west at the direction of 270 degrees again, but this is merely a short distance from 05:50 to 05:50, and even if she was unable to navigate, it is difficult to see the direction of operation of the tugboat to see the direction of operation of the vessel at the same time, and it is still difficult to see the direction of collision to see the direction of operation of the vessel at the same time.

(B) Whether the duty of care of Hebee increases or not

According to the records, Defendant 3, upon approaching a mountain port, was provided with information on anchorages from Taesan VTS, selected the anchorages at 36.53:06 degrees north latitude 1, which is about 4.6 miles north latitude, and at 126.03 degrees east longitude 126.03 degrees east 12,000. The actual anchoring location is about 36.4 degrees east latitude 254 degrees 4.4 degrees east north latitude, 126.03 degrees 17 degrees east longitude, and the above anchorages are recognized as a place where the coastal traffic vessels were located on the north side of the Blackdo traffic separation zone and the intersection line located on the parallel port or the parallel port of Pyeongtaek 4.6 miles, and about 36.4 degrees 46:42 east 1,462,464 mar oil tanker at the same time.

In full view of the above facts, although it cannot be deemed inappropriate to select an anchorage of the Hebea, the above anchorages are frequent, and the oil tanker in itself does not increase the risk of collision, but the possibility of oil leakage is significantly higher than the double oil tanker in the event of collisions in the state of oil congestion, although it does not increase the risk of collision, there is no express provision that imposes an aggravated duty on the avoidance of boundary or collision by the specificity of anchorage or whether it is a single oil tanker, but Defendant 5 and 3 do not have a duty of care to avoid collisions at an early stage.

(C) Whether Defendant 5 violated the duty of care

V-Spes, a management company of Hebee, shall prepare a manual for operation on the ship (Fet Poner Policy, 5949 pages of investigation records) and a manual for operation on the ship (4912 pages of trial records) and keep the manual for operation on the ship. By embodying the manual, Defendant 3 shall prepare and signed by Defendant 5, and it shall be determined by taking into account the special nature of the above anchorage and the risk of collision between Defendant 5 and Defendant 5’s duty of care immediately, and the duty of care should be determined by taking into account the special nature of the anchorage and the risk of collision.

However, as seen earlier, on December 7, 2007, the tugboat was under the situation of having been working within the distance of 04:0 from 00 to 3 miles, so there was a danger of collision as it was pushed down to 1.8 miles, which is the direction at which he was anchored. From 04:45 to 05:30, the tugboat was seized to east by 05:5 to 05:50, and it was under the first time to 05:5:50 of the vessel’s duty to leave from 05:5 to 05:50 of the vessel’s duty to leave from 05:5 to 05:50 of the vessel’s duty to leave from 05:5,000 to 6:0 of the vessel’s duty to leave from 06:0 of the vessel’s first time to 06:0 of the vessel’s duty to leave from 10,000 of the vessel.

When Defendant 5 performed the duty of boundaries as appropriate, between 05:30 to 05:51, the fleet’s navigational intention or its position could have been ensured that the fleet’s navigational direction was abnormal, and the fleet’s navigational intention or its position could have been asked. The fleet could have prepared in advance. After the lapse of 05:51, it was confirmed that the fleet was going to her port from her port, i.e., Defendant 3, from her port to her port, and that the fleet could have reported about the abnormal navigation of the fleet.

Defendant 5 could have more choice in navigational action and make accurate judgment if Defendant 5 got out of the missionary work more promptly and provided Defendant 3 with accurate information about the movement of a tugboat.

(D) Whether Hubehoho maintains its engine reserve status

In the event a ship is anchored at an anchorage which is not shielding, the captain and the head of the agency are obliged to maintain the status of the ship’s operation in accordance with Articles 3-1(7), 82 and 83 of Part III of Part VIII, 302, and Articles 82 and 83 of Part III. The state of institutional preparation refers to a state in which the ship can be driven by using each body, i.e., a state in which the main engine of the ship is towed, if it is necessary to be used by the body, such as assistive equipment connected within a short time according to the order of the missionary work, which is distinguishable from the state in which the ship can be directly used by the body in accordance with the order of the missionary work.

Demanding a vessel at anchor in an unshielded place to maintain the engine's preparatory state is exposed to the collision risk of nearby anchor vessels or traffic vessels, so that the engine can immediately use the engine so that it can escape the danger situation.

On December 7, 2007, according to the records, Defendant 3 did not know that there was a collision between the 3rd-down engine and the 3rd-down engine at the time of 0:06, and the 3rd-down engine was used for the first time at around 06:14, while 06:5 minutes from 06:0, the 3rd-down engine did not use the 3rd-down engine at the time of 0:5,58 and 06:59 on the other hand, it is difficult to view that the 3rd-down engine did not use the 3rd-down engine at the time of the collision between the 1st-down engine and the 3rd-down engine, and thus, it was difficult to view the 3rd-down engine at the time of the collision between the 3rd-down engine and the 3rd-down engine, and thus, it was difficult to view the 3rd-down engine to use the 3rd-down engine.

(E) Whether Defendant 3’s action to avoid collision was appropriate

① According to the Sea Traffic Safety Act and the International Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea, the navigational rules applicable to each vessel’s navigational position are different. The fleet’s navigational power can be deemed to be seriously restricted even if the vessel is not under command, as seen earlier, even if the vessel is not under command as seen earlier. Hebee’s status, there is no specific navigation rules applicable to a vessel not under command and an anchored vessel under the Sea Traffic Safety Act or the International Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea, and the above two vessels are in a position to make every effort to avoid collision under special circumstances pursuant to Article 2 of the above International Rules. However, the Sea Traffic Safety Act and the International Rules for Preventing Collisions at Sea provide that affirmative and steering gear, large change and speed of action, and a sufficient safety passage and distance between the two vessels. Accordingly, we examine whether Defendant 3’s action to avoid collision is appropriate.

According to the records, Defendant 3 took measures to unfune anchor lines from 06:17 to 06 on December 7, 2007 by putting the tugboat into the missionary work. From 06:06, Defendant 3 took measures to unfune the anchor lines from 4:00, despite Defendant 3’s above measures, he seems to have 110 meters long from 212 meters long from 3:5 meters long from 4:00 longer than 6:0 longer from 4:0 longer than 6:0 longerer than 6:0 longerer than 6:0 longerer than 6:0 longerer than 6:0 longerer than 6:0 longerer than 6:0 longerer than 6:0 longerer than 6:00 longer than 6:00 longer than 6:00 longer than 6.

② 당시 피고인 3이 선교에 올라온 후 선택할 수 있었던 피항동작이 극미속후진을 하며 닻줄을 4절 내어주는 것밖에 없었다면 이를 두고 피고인 3을 탓할 수는 없을 것이다. 그러나 검사는 피고인 3이 취했어야 할 피항동작으로서 ㉠ 닻줄의 일부를 감아 올린 후 후진하거나, ㉡ 닻줄을 감으며 우현전타하거나, ㉢ 닻을 끌면서 후진하거나, ㉣ 신속히 닻줄을 분리한 다음 닻을 버리고 현장에서 이탈하는 등의 조치를 주장하고 있으므로, 피고인 5가 경계를 철저히 하였다면 피고인 3을 호출하였을 시간인 05:50경과 실제로 피고인 3이 선교에 올라온 06:06경 등 두 시점을 기준으로 위 피항동작들이 가능하였는지 여부를 살펴보기로 한다.

We examine the possibility of taking measures to cut a part of the anchor line first of the intended branch of the Commission. According to the record, HV subparagraph was in the state of carrying a anchor line of approximately KRW 9,00, but it is recognized that if anchors are buried at approximately 4 to 5, it would be able to freely drive a ship because the anchor is in the state of not having the power to break the anchor. In order to bury the anchor at approximately 4 to 5, it is recognized that approximately 100 meters should be turned back in the future, and approximately 3 minutes must be taken in the body of Hebe subparagraph, and preparation for the anchor be completed, and approximately 12 to 13 minutes will take place.

Based on the situation where Defendant 3 was on missionary work at around 05:50, the distance between 06:02-03 and Hubeh, which is about 1 miles-1 and Hubeh, was about 1 miles. The tugboat was moving to her top at about 1:2 knots, average speed of about 1:5m, 137.5m from Hubeh, 15 minutes, and 06:17m from 0.5m from Hubeh, which is about 1,000 to 10m from 1,000, which is about 0.5m from 1,000 to 18m from 1,000 to 3m from 1,000 from 1,000 to 1,000 from 1,00,000 from 1,000 to 3m from 1,000 from 1,000,000 from 2,000.

In addition, even when Defendant 3 was based on around 06:06, which was actually listed in the missionary work, the distance between Samsung A-1 and Hebanho Lake based on the 5th line of Taesan VTS at around 06:17, when the preparation for the Hubho strings was completed, the distance between Samsung A-1 and Hebanhoho is higher than about 0.5 m., and the distance between Heban 1 and Heban 1, which was advanced for the 5th line of Heban 1, around 06:32, around 06:36 m. ( around 66 m.). Thus, when the distance between Hebhoho 1 and Heban 1 is deducted from the distance set between the two vessels, the distance between the two vessels is about 528m, and about 248m from the basis of Hebho h's athletes, and thus, it is not possible to demand the Defendant 3 to advance the funeral.

For the reasons mentioned above, it is more so in that the anchor is reduced, and the method of avoiding the collision is not also seen as a possible way, and when the above method is used, it is more so that the line can be rapidly set back and facilitate the collision.

The court below's 10 meters away from 10 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m3 m4 m3 m3 m4 m4 m3 m4 m3 m4 m3 m4 m3 m4 m4 m3 m4 m4 m4 m4 m3 6 m3 m3 m3 m3 m4 m3 m4 m4 m3 m3 m4 m3 m4 m3 m4 m3 m4 m4 m4 m4 m3 m4 m4 m4 m4 m3 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m3 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4 m4

㉣ 마지막으로 닻을 버리고 피항하는 방법에 관하여 살피건대, 피고인 3, 5의 수사기관에서부터 당심 법정에 이르기까지의 진술, 당심 법원의 사단법인 한국선급에 대한 사실조회 회보 등을 종합하면, 허베이호는 유사시 해머로 비터엔드핀(Bitter End Pin)을 타격하여 앵커를 분리할 수 있는 구조로 만들어진 사실, 비터엔드핀이 파단되기 위해서는 434kN 정도의 힘이 필요한 사실, 피고인 3은 06:58경 비터엔드핀을 해머로 때려 분리하려는 시도를 하였으나 실패한 사실이 인정된다.

However, it seems to be a method used as a last resort in the event of the risk of collision, rather than a method used as a general method of avoiding anchors, and it is not deemed that Defendant 3 was an imminent situation to avoid anchors even when 05:50 or around 06:06, which is time listed in the mission.

However, since the risk of collision becomes urgent after the towing is cut, Defendant 3 should have also taken into account the method of throwing anchor and avoiding the collision. In fact, Defendant 3 implemented it. However, it cannot be viewed as a possible measure in a few minutes as the prosecutor asserts, and there is no special provision on the management of Viendipine for about whether it is possible to separate Viendipine for about 15 minutes before the collision after the towing is cut, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was any error in the Viendipine for the 15 minutes period before the collision. Since there is no evidence to prove that there was any error in the Viendipine in the Viendipine, it is difficult to prove that the separation of Viendipine takes a certain degree of time. Therefore, Defendant 3’s negligence cannot be recognized as to the omission in the separation of Viendipine.

③ Sub-committee

Thus, Defendant 3 has the duty of care to promptly check the field situation after getting up on the missionary work, and to take action to avoid navigation as soon as possible, and in the situation at that time, Defendant 3 has been negligent in taking passive measures to set anchor at a speed above half speed without taking such measures, even though it is the best method to drive anchor at a speed above half speed.

(f) Whether a pollution response measure is appropriate after the collision

(1) Whether a person was able to directly prevent a person from committing a violation of his/her order.

According to the statement of a estimate of Alpha and the fact-finding reply to the fact-finding by the court of the trial of the case, the size of the Alphail tank is 1 tank 300mm x 30mm x 300mm x 100mm x 1600mm x 200mm x 5 tank 5 tank 160mm x 2000mm, and the specialized company which was requested to close the wave from the port on December 7 and 8, 2007, which had gone through the port on December 9, 207 and was able to get access to the Heba Lake and work on December 9, 207 without approaching the Hebaz. The fact-finding was recognized to have been 2 hours and 30 minutes high since the above company prevented the so-called wave. In full view of the above facts, it does not seem to have been able to directly prevent the part of the wave after the collision.

(2) As to the assertion that the amount of oil outflow increases rather by injecting the inflammable gas.

In order to be explosiond, all inflammable gas, oxygens with a certain concentration (11%) or more, and spaks must be equipped. In the case of oil tankers, the supply of oxygens and the occurrence of spaks is important to prevent explosion. Therefore, ISOT (International Safy Guides and Terminers) requires cargo tanks to keep influorous state (i.e., oxygen concentration is not more than 8% based on volume, and high pressure than atmospheric pressure) and require some oil tankers to have influorous gas (IG) systems, and it is mandatory to have influorous gas systems.

However, in the event of collision, if the oil tanker injects the inflammable gas into the cargo tank, the cargo tank's internal pressure would be high, thereby inducing the outflow of crude oil. On the contrary, it is recognized that the speed of the outflow of crude oil would be significantly reduced if the cargo tank is maintained by Non-Indicted 19, according to Non-Indicted 19's statement at the trial court, when the cargo tank is maintained as a secondary pressure without injecting the non-vir gas.

However, in the event that the secondary pressure on the cargo tank gets into the tank, it may be explosionable if the air is introduced into the tank from the wave level. However, considering the fact that infusing the inflammable gas, the pressure in the cargo tank can be increased and the leakage of raw milk may be promoted, it is not necessarily required to inject the inflammable gas even in the event of a collision with the cargo tank.

In the event of collision, the question of whether there are other international norms or guidelines inside the Hebeho Lake, which provide for the measures to be taken by the captain, shall be examined. On May 31, 2005, the International Maritime Organization Guidelines 2.5.3 of the Emergency Plan for Oil Pollution Pollution (SOPEP) established by the International Maritime Organization (the International Organization) provides that if the ship is damaged and oil is leaked, it shall block the inflow of unnecessary air if the oil is leaked. In March 3, 2003, where it is deemed that the ship has been damaged due to the collision accident, it shall prevent the inflow of unnecessary air as one of the measures taken when it is considered that the ship has been damaged due to the collision. However, it does not seem that the "air" as defined in this context means the active gas. However, the SOPPP under the Hube provides for the best measures to minimize additional pollution in the event of the collision accident, and there is no specific reference to the oil spill or the oil spilling tank of 3.0

I think, in the case of damage to a vessel due to collision, there is no clear provision in the SPEP of the International Maritime Organization, and the captain is obligated to take measures to minimize pollution. The emergency activity plan specifically identified in the SPOEP only functions of the body to assist the rapid and accurate operation of the vessel in the event of an accident, and it cannot be seen as having been specified specific and unexpectedly on all possible situations. Therefore, the captain is not obliged to take measures by comparing the risk of marine pollution caused by the collision and the risk of explosion, which might have been more dangerous than that of the oil spill at the time of the collision, so the risk of explosion by the oil spill is likely to occur immediately after the collision, and the possibility of explosion by the oil spilling and against the present imminent danger is likely to occur, but it cannot be seen as being exempt from the captain's responsibility because it can not be said that there is a high density of the oil spill in the air at the time of the collision.

(3) Appropriateness of measures for oil transfer.

According to the records, He start oil transfer on December 7, 2007, after the first collision, at around 3:30 minutes and 30 minutes, and around 10:35 on December 7, 2007, he began to transport oil from the tank 3:5 on the port side to the tank 3:5, and thereafter, from around 11:45 to around 13:15, he was engaged in an operation to pay back the oil with parallel water, and again transferred the crude oil of the tank 1 to the tank 1,2,4, and 5:00, at around 15:0.

Defendant 3 and Defendant 5 asserted that, since 30 minutes after collision and 30 minutes of oil were transferred, it was due to the fact that there was time to re-contain the height of empty space from the upper part of the cargo tank to the part where the cargo is loaded) and ice cream for the main reason that the oil was transported, even though 30 minutes after collision, it seems that there was no possibility of collision between the above 1, 3, and 5 minutes of the oil tank and the cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's cargo tank's 3 level.

In addition, the Hubeho Lake suspended the transfer of oil around 15:00 on December 7, 2007 on the ground that there is no longer space in the cargo tank, and even if the 10% of the 10 cargo tank is not destroyed, if oil was transferred to the 99.5% of the 10 cargo tank, a considerable amount of oil leakage could have been prevented.

The prosecutor asserts that the transport speed could have been increased if he uses the tank charter. However, the above method is not ordinarily used for the transfer of raw milk, but it is not easy for Defendant 3 to think of it immediately after the collision. Considering the diameter of pipe used for the above method, the transfer through the tank charter does not seem to be effective in light of the fact that the transfer through the tank charter was partially damaged, and it cannot be caused by the failure of Defendant 3 and Defendant 5 to take such measures as above.

Furthermore, the prosecutor asserts that Defendant 3 and Defendant 5 should have transferred oil to the ballast tank (Ballst Bank, flat water tank), but it is not possible to transfer cargo to the normal relation line because Hege subparagraph is of a hull structure completely cut off from the cargo zone, so he cannot transfer cargo to the normal relation line, and connected to the deck connections of the cargo tank with the on-board ballast tank on the deck of the cargo tank. At the time, there was no appropriate equipment such as string, etc. at the time, and it appears that it was not easy to procure the equipment immediately on the land. In light of the fact that it is impossible to influort gas into the ballast tank and it is practically dangerous to explosion, it is not possible to take measures.

(4) Appropriateness of the sound for hulls.

According to the records, Defendant 3 maintained only a slope of approximately 5-6 degrees on the ground that it is dangerous for the walking on deck while making hacker hacks by filling the parallel in the ballast tank in order to reduce the oil leakage. However, according to the witness Nonindicted 20’s statement at the trial court and inquiry of the fact-finding on the Korean vessel level at the trial court, even if he was unable to use the hull up to the maximum slope angle, the hull could have been used for up to 10 degrees. The crew’s walking rail, etc. was installed on the deck of Heba, and the safety of the on-board work appears to have been affected by the weather or maritime conditions at the time, rather than using the hull, if he paid the hull up to 10 degrees additionally, it would have been likely to have prevented oil outflow.

⑤ Sub-committee

As seen above, if P/V valves were to be maintained in the tank by blocking the entry of P/V valves into the atmosphere at the early stage from Hebehohoho Lake, without injecting any inflammable gas, it would have been able to prevent considerable amount of oil leakage if it was taken such measures as prompt, to the maximum extent possible, and to use the hull more excessively. However, the amount of oil outflow has been expanded due to negligence on the part of Hebehohohoho Lakeho Lake, which did not take an early appropriate response.

However, it is difficult to prove whether the amount of oil outflow can be reduced to 11.5% of the actual amount of oil outflow when Defendant 3 took all the above measures.

Therefore, it is recognized that there is an aspect that the outflow of crude oil has been spreading due to the failure of pollution response measures on the side of Hebehohohohoho Lake, and all of the defendants should be considered as sentencing data for all of them.

(G) Determination on the assertion by Defendant 3, 5, and 7 (Hubee Co., Ltd.)

① As to the assertion that there was no causation

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that Samsung T-1 had no causation between Samsung T-1 and Samsung T-5's negligence at the time of Samsung T-1's destruction of Samsung T-1's fleet's fleet's fleet's 6-1's fleet's 6-1's 3's 6's 6's 6's 6's 5's 6's 6's 5's 6's 6's 5's 6's 6's 6's 5's 6's 6's 6's 6's 5's 6's 6's 5's 6's 6's 5's 6's 6's 5's 6's 5's 6's 5's 6's 1's 6's 5's 1's 6's 1's 7's 's 's 's ''s 's 1's '.

Therefore, considering the fact that the tugboat was trying to pass through the direction of the fleet from the port side while the fleet was trying to pass through the fleet from the port side, but the distance between the two vessels was not wideed, the fleet cannot be deemed to have completely extinguished or reduced the risk of collision before around 06:52 due to strong wind and tidal power, and it is not the reason why the fleet approach the direction of the fleet with passive navigational action without considering the influence of Hebea, is one of the reason why the fleet might not properly go through the boundaries, and it cannot be deemed that the causal relationship between the negligence and the accident of this case where Defendant 3 made improper decisions on the situation and the situation of Defendant 3 did not reduce the collision between the collision and the accident of this case (this is the same in case where Defendant 3 did not take active action to avoid collision when he did so while anchor and she did not take an exclusive action to avoid collision).

② As to the assertion that the destruction of a ship does not constitute the destruction of a ship

Defendant 3, 5, and 7 (HV Co., Ltd.) refers to damage to the extent that the whole or part of the method of use as a means of transport makes it impossible, and does not include simple and minor damage that does not reach this degree. He asserts that HV is not punishable as a crime of destroying a ship by occupational negligence as provided in Articles 187 and 189 of the Criminal Act on the ground that, due to the collision with a tugboat, there was damage to the player list, satellite communications antenna, navigation, etc., and there was a strike at three crude oil tanks on the port 1, 3, and 5, but after completion of a simple repair, it cannot be deemed that the damage to the above extent does not constitute damage to the extent that it would make it impossible to implement the method of use as a means of transport, and that it cannot be punished as a crime of occupational negligence as provided for in Articles 187 and 189 of the Criminal Act.

In light of the records, it is recognized that crude oil has been continuously leaked into the sea in the field of Pakistan by the lapse of two days after the collision with the fleet was damaged by the 3rd group of Hebe-ho, and the oil tanker, the main purpose of which is the transportation of crude oil, even if it is possible to operate due to the failure of the institution or missionary work of Hebe-hohohohoho, even if it was not damaged, it is reasonable to view that the oil tanker, the main purpose of which is to operate normally, can not be deemed that the oil tanker can operate normally, and the degree of damage from Hebe-hoh due to the collision is the damage that is part of the usage of the oil tanker as the transportation engine of the oil tanker. Therefore, the above defendants' above assertion is without merit. In addition, the issue of whether the ship was destroyed shall be determined at the time of the accident, and it is not simply damaged because it was possible to sail after simple repair.

4. Determination as to the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1, 4, and 6 (Tongsung Heavy Industries)

A. Determination on whether liability exists under the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act, and on the assertion of the degree of causal relationship

As seen in Article 3-3(c)(2)(f) of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendants on the Hebehohohohohoho Lake because the negligence on the part of the Hebehohohohohohohohohoho Lake is considerable in the proliferation of marine pollution caused by oil outflow.

However, Defendant 1, 4, and 6 (Trisung Heavy Industries) did not accept the grounds for appeal to the effect that there is no predictability and causation for marine pollution on the side of the tugboat, on the ground that the primary responsibility for the collision of this case was partially negligent on the side of the tugboat, and that there is no predictability and causation for marine pollution on the side of the tugboat.

Meanwhile, the above Defendants’ assertion is reasonable within the scope of recognition of common negligence with the Defendants on the part of Hebehohohoho Lake, but it is difficult to see that there was an error of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles with respect to the judgment of the court below against the above Defendants, and it is only to

B. Determination as to the possibility of predictability of the towing line of Hebee and the possibility of avoiding the outcome of the conflict

As examined in the above 3-c. (2) (g) and (g) above, the reason why the towing line of Samsung T-5 was sold was due to the external force due to the weather situation at the time, and to avoid the improper navigational action of Hebee, but there are problems in the tugboat itself, such as the period of use of the towing line, the strength of the towing line, the interference by the access of Samsung T-5 and T-3, and the inappropriate towing structure, and it cannot be deemed that it was known or could have been known on the side of Hebee, and therefore, the predictability of the towing line should be determined based on the same criteria as to the tugboat and Hebee.

However, as a side of Hebehohoho Lake, it is necessary to take action against the ship appropriately using the engine by reducing the risk of collision in advance, and since the shipbuilding on the side of the tugboat was difficult, it is not necessary to judge that part of the fleet was a Hubeho-ho player, but rather, it is necessary to promptly grasp and cope with emergency situations until the whole tugboat completely saw Hebeho-ho player, while there is negligence that the above duty of care is not fulfilled. However, the above situation is also determined only as to sentencing.

C. Judgment on the assertion by Defendant Samsung Heavy Industries

Therefore, the grounds for appeal by Defendant Samsung Heavy Industries are summarized as limited to the assertion of unfair sentencing, and thus, it is concluded that the defendant's joint fault on the side of Hebeh for collision and marine pollution was recognized in the trial. However, in contrast to the enormous damage that the defendant 1, 2, and 4 under the supervision and control of Defendant Samsung Heavy Industries's Samsung Heavy Industries is the most main cause of collision accident and marine pollution, the court below's fine of KRW 30 million is too high, and the above defendant's argument is without merit.

D. Determination on Defendant 4’s assertion of negligence

Defendant 4’s negligence, one of the Defendants 4’s negligence, was solely towed by Samsung T-5 lines, and therefore, the engine output should have been maximized so that the barge could not be pushed down as it is from Hubbe, but he used the engine output of Sam T-3 to the maximum amount of 650 RPM for subdivision transfer (RPM) that does not reach 750 RPM.

However, considering the fact that the fleet's engine is operated by 100% of the sustainable maximum turning over (MCR: MCR) and by 110% of the engine in an emergency, it appears that it is possible to operate the tugboat independently from the high sea (the statement in the trial court of Non-Indicted 25) and that T-3 of T-3 of T-3 was towing a barge exceeding 11,000 tons at the time, it is impossible to use the engine as the maximum output. There is no evidence to prove that T-3 of T-3 had a higher engine output than 650RM, and there is no reason to conclude that Defendant 4 could not output more than 650RM in the event of an imminent collision with H&V, even if Defendant 4 could not output more, it is difficult to use the engine as the engine engine on the ground of Defendant 4's negligence.

However, since Defendant 4’s negligence stated in the facts charged, excluding the engine use portion, is recognized as both direct violation of the shipbuilding duty and violation of the fiduciary duty, there is no difficulty in recognizing Defendant 4’s conviction, and such fact is considered only for sentencing with Defendant 4.

E. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts by Defendant 1’s defense counsel

(1) Determination as to Defendant 1’s status for operation

Although Defendant 2 directed the work site as a general manager, in the event of towing a tugboat, Defendant 2 was located in a barge with no self-reliance ability, and the equipment of the barge alone could not grasp accurate information. On the other hand, Defendant 1, as the main tugboat captain, is in a position to collect information on navigation and make accurate judgments, it is reasonable to see that Defendant 1 is Defendant 1. However, since Defendant 2 is obligated to assist Defendant 1 to make correct decisions on navigation, it cannot be said that Defendant 2 is entirely responsible for Defendant 2’s accident of this case, and thus, this is considered in the sentencing of Defendant 1.

(2) Determination as to the assertion of weather change

According to the records, the weather conditions at the time of departure have already been predicted, and the weather conditions at sea may rapidly change, but the fact that the defendant left the port without seeking measures for deterioration of weather and continued voyage until he/she leaves the scheduled route is recognized. Therefore, the argument that the weather change is a weather change is not accepted.

(3) Determination of the danger of an emergency grave

In light of the records, the following facts are examined: (a) after a tugboat was excavated, the barge was operated as an emergency grave; (b) there was no particular problem in the t-3m of emergency grave; (c) Nonindicted 4 of the deck of the barge and Nonindicted 7 and 26 of the deck; and (d) Nonindicted 4 was waiting at the two seedlings after the barge was towed until there was a collision with the Hubbee; (c) there was a structure installed on the deck of the barge and a rail installed above deck; (d) there was no difference in the length and rail of the barge at the time of emergency grave until the tugboat was seized to the east; and (d) there was no possibility that there was no possibility that there was a danger of emergency mooring between the tugboat and the towing on the ground that there was no possibility that there was a difference between the two tugboats’s length and the towing on the ground that there was no possibility that there was a difference in the shape of an emergency mooring on the ground that the tugboat might not have any effect on other tugboatss on the ground that the tugboat was seized.

(4) Determination of causation between non-performance of a fiduciary duty and an accident

If it is necessary to listen at all times for the safety of marine transportation, and if there is a danger of collision, stranding, etc. due to the difficulty of shipbuilding, it is anticipated that there is a call from the marine transportation control center that recognizes the danger, or the nearby vessels, and therefore, it is necessary to take care of the proper action to cooperate in navigation. Even if there is a difficulty in shipbuilding, it is necessary to direct and inform the marine transportation control center or the vessels in danger relation, and even if there was a difficulty in shipbuilding, it is possible to respond to the call or inform them of the difficulty in navigation through timely allocation of duties or directions with the watchkeeping officer, so it is inevitable to not perform the duty to respond to the call or to notify them of the difficulty in navigation. Accordingly, it is not inevitable to conclude that the fleet has failed to perform the duty to respond to the call, and therefore, there is no causation because there was no accident prevention by properly responding to the call in advance, if it was withdrawn from the said measure in the tugboat.

(5) Determination of the assertion on whether the vessel fails to perform its duty to indicate the limitation of operation

In regard to whether it can be deemed that Defendant 1 and 4 made a navigation restriction on the barge and performed the duty under the light provision, under Articles 34(3) and 31(1) of the Maritime Traffic Safety Act, the operation restriction should be made by a towing boat, which is a power-driven vessel. Although the operation restriction on the barge was made on the barge, if the fleet did not make the operation restriction on Samsung T-5 and T-3, the tugboat, the fleet, the fleet, the operation restriction on the barge, it shall not be exempted from a mistake in violation of the light provision. Next, there was a statement at the police station of Nonindicted 5, which seems consistent with the argument that Defendant 4 made the operation restriction on the fleet T-3, but it is difficult to believe that Defendant 1 and 4 stated three all-round white lights, not the "red-red red-red red light" which is the operation restriction on the fleet T-3, and therefore, this part of the allegation in this part of this case cannot be accepted.

(6) As to the assertion of force majeure by the Magman Magman Team

As seen in Article 3-3 (3) (2) (g) and (g) of the Act, the causes of the towing line were cut in the course of the destruction and explosion of Hubbee at the time when the towing line was damaged by external force, such as the intensity by the period of use, the interference by the approach under Samsung T-5 and T-3 of the Samsung T-3, by external force, by wind and waves, etc. at the time, and by the wind and rolling phenomenon, etc., and cutting off in the course of the destruction and robbery of Mabe. The tugboat did not raise an objection against or correct the unreasonable towing structure of the towing approval inspection slip, and it appears that the tugboat did not observe the matters stated in the towing approval inspection slip is one of the causes of the cutting. Thus, the tugboat used the towing line without complying with its own directions, and it cannot be viewed as being a force majeure under this part of the Act, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as having been rejected.

(7) Determination as to the assertion on violation of the Seafarers' Act

According to the records, Defendant 1 did not respond to the VHF call from VTS on December 7, 2007 and the VHF call from VTS on 06:14 HF call on 06:17 the same day, and it was recognized that Nonindicted Party 27 was first connected to VTS only after her phone call with Defendant 1’s mobile phone, and that it was not a communications between VTS and 06:57 immediately before the collision. Although Defendant 1 was in a state without yellow dust immediately after the accident, Defendant 1 did not appear to have been confused with the VTS’s mobile phone log book, Defendant 1 did not appear to have made efforts to make Nonindicted Party 1 appear to have prepared for the aforementioned interview with the VV 1 on the following grounds: Defendant 1 did not appear to have made efforts to make Nonindicted Party 27 and 5 Defendant 1’s mobile phone log book, and thus, Defendant 1 did not appear to have made efforts to see the above fact that Nonindicted Party 1 conspired with V 27.

F. Judgment as to Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principle on New Year’s Day

(1) Determination as to the assertion of necessity

The above defendant's assertion is not accepted, since there was no circumstance that there was an infringement of the life or body of the crew of the tugboat at the time immediately or promptly, and the safety of the vessel or other vessels constituting the tugboat cannot be seen as in essence as in comparison with the damage of Hebe-hohohohohoho Lake or marine pollution damage caused by oil discharge caused by the collision in this case.

(2) Determination on the assertion of expected possibility

As seen earlier, the person in charge of navigation is Defendant 1, and Defendant 2 is in the position of assistant, and it cannot be deemed that Defendant 1 does not absolutely obey the direction of Defendant 2 concerning navigation. In particular, in an emergency situation, Defendant 1, who has all information pertaining to navigation, voluntarily makes a decision on a voyage or an emergency grave, and even if Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 agree, he/she is deemed to have a duty to carry out his/her opinion. Thus, Defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have no possibility of expecting to fulfill the above duty.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the above part of the judgment of the court below should be reversed on the part of defendant 1 (the violation of the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act and the destruction of a ship by occupational negligence), defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7 (the violation of the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act), and the part of the judgment of the court below on the defendant 2, 3, 5, and 7 (the defendant 2, 5, and 7) should be reversed on the ground that the above part of the judgment of the court below on the defendant 1 and the part on the violation of the Seafarers' Act which the court below found guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the part on the violation of the Seafarers' Act which the court below sentenced one punishment. In addition, since the part on the acquittal of the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Seafarers' Act is related to the above violation of the Seafarers' Act and the part on the defendant 1, 4 and the part on the defendant 2, 3, 4,5, and 7 (the part on the defendant 36).

Defendant 1 is the captain of Samsung T-5, the gross tonnage of which is 292 tons of Samsung T-5, the gross tonnage of which is 11,828 tons, a barge loaded with the 3,000t maritime tugboat, and is responsible for safely towing the barge to the destination. Defendant 4 is the captain of Samsung T-3, the gross tonnage of which is 213 tons of towing the barge along with Samsung T-5, and Defendant 2 is the captain of Samsung T-3, the fleet, the fleet of which is comprised of Samsung T-1, and Samsung T-1, the fleet of the fleet, the fleet of which is the fleet of the barge, and Samsung T-1, the barge of the barge.

Meanwhile, Defendant 1 as an employee of Nonindicted Co. 1, a partner of Defendant Samsung Heavy Industries, pursuant to the service management consignment agreement with the Samsung Heavy Industries and Nonindicted Co. 1. Defendant 4 is an employee of Nonindicted Co. 28, who is under the direction and supervision of each Samsung Heavy Industries under the tugboat lease agreement with the said company and Samsung Heavy Industries (hereinafter “TT”) and the tugboat lease agreement with the Samsung Heavy Industries and the Samsung Heavy Industries.

Defendant 3 is the captain of Hebehoho (146,868t) who is a crude oil transporter, and Defendant 5 is the first class mate of Hebeho-ho, and Defendant 3 and Defendant 5 are the persons under the command and supervision of 7 (Hube-ho Corporation) who is the owner of Hebe-ho (Hube-ho) who is a corporation established for the purpose of crude oil transport business, etc.

1. Joint principal offenders committed by Defendant 1, 2, and 4;

At around 14:50 on December 6, 2007, Defendant 1, 2, and 4 exchanged information about the weather conditions of each other at the site of the construction of the Incheon Interandong, Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and discussed the method of towing at the time of passing through the narrow waterway, and then towing the fleet to the destination of the Samsung Heavy Industries Samsung C&T, located in the Singu, Seo-gu, Incheon. The above Defendants jointly committed the following mistakes.

A. Defendant 1

On December 6, 2007, the defendant, as the captain of a main tugboat towing a large sea tugboat, has increased the length of towing at around 22:30 meters from 20 meters to about 400 meters, and has long-distance towing navigation connected to Samsung A-1, which is about 700 meters after the barge, as the captain of the main tugboat towing a large sea tugboat, he shall grasp closely the weather conditions of the entire navigation period, promptly check whether weather conditions have deteriorated, and promptly check the weather conditions, and take measures accordingly, to determine whether the towing capacity is restricted or lost due to weather conditions, and if it is unreasonable to promptly change the distance between the fleet and the captain of the main tugboat by consultation with the captain of the main tugboat and the captain of the main tugboat, and if it is difficult to take measures to rapidly change the distance between the main tugboat and the captain of the main tugboat, the defendant shall not take measures to promptly change the distance of the vessel by taking account of the risk of collision between the captain and the latter.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to perform the above duty of care on December 7, 2007, while sailing at the Northwest-do Sea (N 36-56.1, N 126-02.7) from the Northwest-do (N 36-5.6.1, N 126-07) on the northwest-do (N 19.0m/s, wave, and 3.4m) on the same day, which was difficult for the Defendant to navigate due to bad weather conditions, such as maximum custom 19.0ms, and 126-07ms, from the beginning of the same day on the 04:4:45 Newwest-do 5.7-1, T-3-1, the 1st class mate and the 5th class mate, who were aware of the above duty of care, agreed to sail at the west-do of Incheon, through radio communications with Nonindicted Party 5, thereby causing serious 25m 2,000.

At around 05:30 on the same day, the Defendant continued to give up 5.7 miles southwest and southwest, and ordered Nonindicted 5 of T-3 to block 270 degrees by radio communication without giving up her resistance and continued navigation from the barge to the direction of the original scheduled port, and even though he/she continued navigation from the barge to the direction of about 1.4 miles, he/she did not know whether he/she lost or restricted her ability to blick on the side of the control station and blickho Lake by using radio telephone (VHF) or not, and did not take appropriate emergency measures, such as handling of a grave, in the direction of 0:60 times prior to the occurrence of collision, prior to the occurrence of the danger of collision, the Defendant did not take measures such as handling of a grave with the captain of T-3,000,000, and did not take such measures as handling the vessel by the captain of T-2, 4, and 4,000,00.

B. Defendant 2

The Defendant, as the captain of a barge on board eight seafarers, is expected to be affected by wind during navigation due to the characteristics of a large cacker with a height of about 140 meters, and considering that the length of the tugboat exceeds about 700 meters, a thorough examination of the weather conditions of the entire navigation period shall be conducted in advance, after prompt verification of weather deterioration and danger, and countermeasures shall be conducted by using a ultra-shortwave radio telephone (VHF), and the countermeasures therefor shall be discussed. Whether the tugboat's towing capacity is restricted or lost by a strong wind, etc., the Defendant shall always be examined. On the other hand, the captain of the barge and the tugboat shall also be able to faithfully perform their duty of care by using equipment installed in the wharf and the barge, and therefore, the captain of the tugboat shall be able to assist the tugboat at the time of collision with the captain of the tugboat at the time of emergency, such as an emergency stop.

Nevertheless, on December 6, 2007, the Defendant violated the above duty of care and confirmed that, at around 13:46, Nonindicted 3, an employee of Nonindicted 1 Co., Ltd., was unable to properly perform towing, and that, at around 5:5:0, the Defendant continued to leave the port without having discussed about weather conditions with Defendant 1, 4, etc., even after receiving text messages (the maximum wind 13ms per day, 1-2ms, maximum wind 13ms, 1.5ms, 1.5ms on the following day) on the meteorological deterioration from Nonindicted 3, an employee of Nonindicted Co. 1 Co., Ltd., and did not take necessary measures to prevent collision with the captain of the said vessel by failing to meet the duty of care and to prevent collision between the captain of the said vessel and the captain of the said vessel by failing to perform the duty of care and by failing to perform such duty of care in the direction of the captain of the said vessel at around 04:45 on the same day.

C. Defendant 4

The defendant, as a member of the towing boat T-3, shall grasp weather conditions closely in advance, check weather conditions, such as the entry into force of a wind wave, etc. promptly, and immediately check whether weather conditions have deteriorated, such as a wind wave, shall be entered into with each captain of the fleet, and shall always take care of whether the ability of towing is restricted or lost due to wind, etc., and where risks are anticipated due to bad weather conditions, the captain shall directly take a steering house, and the captain shall take care of mutual communication with the early short-wave radio telephone (VF), and shall take measures to avoid collision in advance by promptly communicating with the control office at the time of discovery of dangerous ships in the vicinity and the counterpart ships, and shall take measures to avoid collision in detail in advance, prior to the occurrence of the risk of collision, and shall take necessary measures to prevent collision of ships, such as seeding, restrictions on adjustment or impossibility of adjustment, etc. by faithfully performing the duty of boundary at an appropriate time.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the above duty of care and went to the steering room at around 23:50 on December 6, 2007, and went to the steering room at around 01:10 on December 7, 2007, and around 01:10 on the 7th of the same month, the 2nd mate, who was on duty, went to the steering room at around 02:0 on the same day, and the fleet returned to the steering room again at around 02:0 on the same day, and continued to be pushed to the steering house at around 05:30 on the same day, and did not directly go to the steering house at around 05:30 on the same day, and on the same day, the Defendant did not have the ability to properly inform the captain of the danger of conflict with the Hube, who was away from the steering boat at around 1.4 math of the time, and did not respond to the traffic signal call at around 06:14 on the same day.

2. Joint criminal conduct by the defendant 3 and 5;

On December 6, 2007, at least 19:18, Defendant 3 and 5 anchored Hexae-be at the sea (36-52.5N, 126-03.0E) on the 6-day southwestwest-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (36-52.5N, 126-03.0E) from the 14:0 following day, to meet the boarding of pilots and the entry into a major port. The above branch was at anchor of Hexa-be-be in order to meet the navigation schedule of the pilot. The above branch was at least 13.4 E-day from the port of entry into a major port, approximately 15 days from the traffic separation zone of the northwestwest-gu, and approximately 7-day off from the southwest-gu, Taenam-do, Taenam-do, and where there is frequent traffic congestion between the Defendants, as well as about 302, 462,464, and 94,00 tons of crude oil.

A. Defendant 5

From 04:00 on December 7, 2007 to 08:00, the Defendant is obligated to immediately leave the captain so as to avoid collision, such as promptly operating the engine provided for in Hebe subparagraph and moving the other vessel from the anchoring site, moving the other vessel from the anchor site in order to avoid collision, by examining well the existence of the vessel that is proceeding close by using navigation equipment, such as the alphra, etc. installed in the land area and the missionary work, and promptly grasping the information about the other vessel using the automatic identification system (AIS), and allowing the other vessel to pass safely at a sufficient distance from the control office and the other vessel, or if it is doubtful that the other vessel loses navigation capacity or is seriously restricted, the other vessel has a duty of care to immediately leave the captain so as to avoid collision.

Nevertheless, the Defendant violated the above duty of care and exercised a strong wind and tidal wave from 04:0 to 04:45, and at least 1:05:30, the Defendant did not take an adequate measure for the captain’s failure to take an approach to the port at least 6:5:0 of the fleet’s first time after the lapse of 0:5:0, while the tugboat did not take an adequate measure for the first time after the lapse of 0:5:0,000, at least the imminent danger of collision between the fleet and the port of 0:0,000, while the tugboat did not take an adequate measure for the first time after the lapse of 0:5:30,000, at least the direction of collision with the port of 0:0,000 from the port of 6:0 to the port of 0:0,000 to the port of 1:5:0,000 to the port of 5:0,000 of the fleet.

B. Defendant 3

The Defendant, as the captain of the Hebee, anchored at a place where the passage of a vessel is frequent as above, shall be in the state of preparation for the head of the agency, and the watchkeeping officer shall educate and manage the captain to immediately leave the port, and shall immediately report the situation from the watchkeeping officer in the event that any danger occurs by giving notice of the special nature of the anchorage as above, and shall immediately report the situation from the watchkeeping officer when going to the missionary work, and shall continuously attempt with the other vessel continuously approaching the situation, and shall cooperate to prevent the collision. If there is doubt about the navigational capacity of the other vessel, such as the other vessel's failure to go to go with the vessel, etc., the Defendant has a duty of care to take active measures to avoid the collision, such as making anchor using a strong strong engine after deeming it as the situation of the collision risk.

Nevertheless, on December 6, 207, 207, the Defendant: (a) did not stop the engine of 19:4 on the 19:4 side of the tugboat at the time of the collision; (b) did not take necessary measures to prevent collision between the vessel and the vessel at the time of the collision; (c) did not take necessary measures to prevent collision with the vessel at the time of the collision with the vessel at the time of the vessel’s rapid stop by using the vessel’s 0-day towing engine at the time of the collision; (d) did not take appropriate measures to prevent collision with the vessel’s vessel at the time of the collision with the vessel’s rapid stop by using the vessel’s 0-day towing engine at the time of the collision with the vessel’s rapid stop 7 meters away from the vessel’s direction; and (e) did not take appropriate measures to ensure that the vessel was at the time of the collision with the vessel’s rapid stop 6 meters away from the vessel’s direction; and (e) did not take adequate measures to ensure the vessel’s rapid stop.

C. Joint negligence by Defendant 3 and Defendant 5 (the negligence with regard to the proliferation of oil outflow)

In addition, Defendant 3 is well aware that the captain of Hebeho-ho, a large oil tanker, and Defendant 5, as the cargo manager of this vessel, are well aware of the structure and characteristics of Hebe-ho-ho-ho, and that enormous damage would occur if the oil is leaked. Thus, in the situation where Hebe-ho is anticipated to collision with the barge, he must take measures to avoid collision and when the collision occurs, he shall take all necessary measures to prevent the oil discharge immediately.

In other words, the vessel should take measures such as (i) transferring damaged oil to tank without damaging it; (ii) strong internal pressure of the oil leakage tank; and (iii) creating optimal conditions to prevent additional leakage of oil due to equal water tanks; (iv) in breach of the above duty of care, the vessel did not transport cargo tanks, ballast tank and other empty tanks at the end of 30 minutes after the blasting; and (v) it did not take any measures to prevent additional leakage of oil to close 10 tanks capable of cargo transfer to close 9.5%; and (v) it did not take any measures to prevent additional leakage of oil tanks for 10 tanks so that the vessel could not transport cargo to close 19.5%; and (v) it did not take any measures to prevent additional leakage of oil to close 10 tanks so that the vessel could not transport cargo to close 10 tanks, even if it could reduce the volume of oil leakage; and (v) it did not take any measures to prevent additional leakage of cargo tanks from spreading it to 20/17.27.

Ultimately, at around 06:52 on December 7, 2007, the aforementioned Defendants’ personal and joint negligence cut down a towing line connected to Samsung T-5, and the barge was pushed down about about 600 meters in the direction of Hubeh, 07:06, 6-2, southwest-gun, westwest-do, west-west 1, N 126-03.1) on the 6-day northwest-west west-do, west-west 1, 350 degrees back to 350 degrees, 50 degrees back to the bottom of the boom boom of the barge, 1, 3, 7, 1, 27, 1, 3, 27, 1, 3, 4, 5, 1, 5, 1, 5, 1, 2, 3, 5, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5, 1, and 1.

3. The responsibility for both punishment for 7 (Licensed Stock Company).

Defendant 3 and Defendant 5, an employee, committed a violation in relation to the duties of the Defendant, as described in the foregoing paragraph (2).

4. Defendant 1’s sole criminal conduct

Around December 7, 2007, the Defendant entered the log-book within Samsung T-5, which was buried near the above point of accident, and entered the log-book in a false statement to the effect that, around the time when the collision accident occurred, the Defendant attempted to communicate with the control office at the time of the collision accident, and that, even though there was no communication prior to the accident, the Defendant did not take place prior to the accident, the log-book was entered in a false statement to the effect that “the request for the T-5 TTS, S/Beng, 05.”

1. The respective statements of the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the original judgment and the court of the original instance

1. The witness, non-indicted 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 of the original judgment and each statement at the court of a trial;

1. Some of the interrogation records of each prosecutor's office concerning the defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

1. Part of the protocol of statement of witness prepared by each judicial police officer against Nonindicted 5, 6, 4, and 8

1. Document of examination by the court below;

1. Results of each verification of voice files and radar slots, among the DNA doping materials of the Supreme Court of the original instance, from among the DNA Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Control Center;

1. A written appraisal prepared by the appraiser Nonindicted 22, 23, 24, 38, and 39

1. 52 pages map (52 pages), 176 degrees for each hour of the accident ship (176 pages), copies of insurance investigation certificate (292 pages), copies of investigation report (349 pages), 389 pages, 380 copies of log-book (827 pages), 137 pages, copies of engine records (137 pages), drawings of maritime meteorological science (2140 pages), 2150 pages, 246 U.S. E. 263 copies of investigation report and investigation report (2542 pages), G643, 3646, 3663, 4663, 466, 366, 466, 366, 466, 366, 466, 366, 466, 366, 466, 366, 366, 46, 366

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendant 1: Article 22 of the Addenda of the Marine Environment Management Act (amended by Act No. 8260 of Jan. 19, 2007, Article 2 of the Addenda of the former Prevention of Marine Pollution Act (amended by Act No. 8260 of Jan. 19, 2007, hereinafter “former Prevention of Marine Pollution Act”), Articles 71(2)1 and 5(1) (the discharge of oil from a ship by negligence) of the former Prevention of Marine Pollution Act, Articles 189(2) and 187 of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying a ship by negligence in the course of duty), Articles 135 subparag. 6 and 20(1)3 (a false log-book) of the Seafarers Act

○ Defendant 2, Defendant 3, 4, and 5: Article 22 of the Addenda to the Marine Environment Management Act ( January 19, 2007), Article 71(2)1, and Article 5(1) of the former Prevention of Marine Pollution Act (in cases of discharging oil from ships by negligence), Articles 189(2) and 187 of the Criminal Act (in cases of destroying ships by negligence in the course of performing duties)

○○ 7 (Licensed Corporation): Article 22 of the Addenda to the Marine Environment Management Act ( January 19, 2007), Articles 77, 71(2)1, and 5(1) of the former Prevention of Marine Pollution Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant 1, 2, and 4: Imprisonment with or without labor for a violation of the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act, and each imprisonment without labor for a crime of destroying a ship by occupational negligence.

Defendant 3 and 5: each imprisonment without prison labor for the crime of destroying a ship by occupational negligence, and each fine for the crime of violating the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act (Article 77-2 (1) of the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 3, and 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Concurrent Imposition of Imprisonment with prison labor for concurrent crimes of destroying a ship by occupational negligence and violation of the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act, which are prescribed by the Act on the Prevention of Marine Pollution, and fines prescribed by the Act on the Punishment of Marine Pollution)

○ Defendant 2 and 4: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Punishment of Marine Pollution Act Governing Punishment Act)

○ Defendant 3 and 5: The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 3, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Imposition of Imprisonment without prison labor prescribed in the crimes of destroying a ship by occupational negligence and fines prescribed in the crimes of the Prevention of Marine Pollution Act)

1. Detention in a workhouse (Defendant 1, 3, and 5)

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. The inclusion of days of pre-trial detention (as against Defendant 1 and 2)

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

As oil 12,00 Dup, which was loaded in Hebeh due to the instant accident, was leaked, the sea of the Republic of Korea has suffered damage which could not be recovered from monetary compensation, and the mental and property damage of neighboring local residents is also enormous. Thus, the Defendants who were negligent in the instant accident cannot be held liable with severe liability.

Defendant 1, as the captain of the main tugboat, has the largest negligence on the occurrence of the instant accident. However, in the trial of the first instance, Defendant 3 and 5 were negligent in the collision accident, and even in the pollution prevention part, it is recognized that the above defendants' measures are inappropriate, and thus, the punishment shall be determined in consideration of the above facts.

Defendant 2, as the captain of a tugboat and a barge, did not perform his duty to assist safe towing navigation but did not constitute a crime, such as denying his mistake until the court of trial. However, as the barge is a non-powered vessel, and it cannot collect accurate navigation information, it does not seem that Defendant 2 is directly responsible for navigation. Thus, in light of this, a punishment shall be determined.

Defendant 4, as the captain of a towing boat, has the duty to safely carry out towing navigation in cooperation with Defendant 1. However, the above Defendant merely follows the order of Defendant 1 and 2 in towing navigation, and appears to have no independent decision-making right. Defendant 4 did not perform his own duty before the towing line is cut down, but Defendant 4 appears to have made efforts to prevent accidents by raising engine output with the maximum output available, and making efforts to prevent accidents after towing.

Defendant 3, 5, and 7 (Liber Co., Ltd.) asserted that the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the tugboat group, and the accident of this case was only caused by the negligence of the tugboat group, and is consistent with the defense without any reflecting any of their errors. In particular, Defendant 5 determined a punishment against the above Defendants in consideration of the above facts, since it appears that the negligence of the tugboat at any time, such as the reversal of the statement and making a false statement, is greater than the negligence of the tugboat, but the negligence of the above Defendants, such as the performance of defective duty and improper navigational action, are one of the major causes of the collision, and in particular, it was possible for Defendant 3 to reduce a considerable amount of oil outflow if he had withdrawn prompt and appropriate measures after the collision.

The summary of the facts charged as to Defendant 1’s false entry in the log-book as to Defendant 1’s violation of the Seafarers’ Act is difficult, but the Defendant entered the log-book within Samsung 5, which was administered near the point of the above accident, around December 7, 2007, and attempted to Hubehhh, and entered the log-book to the effect that “at least 05:5:5 times before the accident occurred, the Defendant entered the log-book to the effect that “at least 0:5 times before the accident, the Defendant did not have any communication,” but was found guilty of the violation of the Seafarers’ Act’s 4, Nonindicted 6’s statement at the lower court, and Nonindicted 6’s voice appraisal at the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, and that there was no difference between the time-book and the time-book between the Defendant and the point of view that there was a big difference between the time-book and the point of view that there was no difference between the time-book and the point of view that the Defendant had a big difference between the time-book and the point of view.

Judges Lee Man-man (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-Ma