[1] Meaning of “defensive” in the crime of interference with business through deceptive means / Whether the crime of interference with business should actually occur to establish the crime of interference with business (negative), and whether the crime of interference with business is established even in the case where the propriety or fairness of business is obstructed, not in itself, (affirmative)

[2] Whether the intention of interference with business must be the purpose of interference with business or planned interference with business (negative), and the contents of intent necessary to establish interference with business

[1] Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 13 and 314(1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506 Decided March 25, 2010 (Gong2010Sang, 841), Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15144 Decided February 21, 2017, Supreme Court Decision 2017Do1949 Decided May 15, 2018 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4141 Decided May 24, 2012, Supreme Court Decision 2012Do3475 Decided January 31, 2013

Defendant

Prosecutor

Law Firm Sound, Attorneys Jeong-soo et al.

Gwangju High Court Decision 2015No176 decided July 21, 2015

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to interference with the performance of duties related to slope tests, degradation-type boarding equipment, light lamps, and the inspection of the entrance of the fourth-class passenger room

A. The court below found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance or adding some circumstances, on the ground as stated in its reasoning, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to interference with the inspection of slope test, a downboard boarding device, a light light, and the entrance entrance of the fourth floor passenger room among the facts charged in the instant case, on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was aware of the false facts, or that the above facts were based on false data different from the data measured at the time of the prosecutor’s inspection.

B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

(1) In relation to the crime of interference with business by fraudulent means, the crime of interference with business refers to using deceptive means by causing mistake, dismissal, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the act. The establishment of the crime of interference with business is sufficient if the result of the interference with business is not required to actually occur, and if there is a risk of causing the result of the interference with business. In addition, the crime of interference with business is established even in cases where the propriety or fairness of the business is interfered with (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do8506, Mar. 25, 2010, etc.). The intention of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of the interference with business purpose or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of interfering with another person’s business due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also uncertain (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4141, May 24, 2012, etc.).

(2) First, the part of the instant facts charged pertaining to the obstruction of business related to the slope test is examined.

(A) The lower court determined that, even if the Defendant did not faithfully perform the inspection duties at the time of the slope test under the relevant provisions, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that there was a false perception that the content of the slope test report is false, considering the following circumstances.

① The pre-paid inspection rules of Nonindicted Company 1 stipulate that a ship inspector shall accurately measure the capacity of each tank before commencing a slope test, and that the weight and location of each relevant item shall be confirmed and recorded on the basis of the list of goods to be loaded, unregistered goods, and items to be reconstructed at the time of completion of the ship. Nonindicted Company 1 emphasizes the meaning that measurement should be accurate, but it does not mean that the inspector must directly confirm all matters. In the event that the inspector confirms it through monitoring of participants who can be present at the site, it is interpreted that the inspector fulfilled his/her duty.

(2) In cases of large vessels in light of the procedures and details of the ship inspection, human resources necessary for the ship inspection, etc., it is not possible for a ship inspector to measure and verify all data related to the slope test on his/her own. In ordinary cases, it is difficult to readily conclude that the result of the slope test was erroneous, or that the ship inspector had an intention to interfere with the affairs of Nonindicted Company 1, solely on the basis of the fact that the ship inspector trusted the results of the measurement conducted by other persons who participated in the slope test.

③ The Defendant did not directly measure certain items before the slope test and confirmed only the result of Nonindicted Party 2, etc.’s measurement. At the time, there was no evidence to prove that the numerical value or test result of Nonindicted Party 2, etc. for each tank measured by Nonindicted Party 2, etc. is different from the fact, or that there was a circumstance to suspect the result of measurement by Nonindicted Party 2, etc.

④ Re-verification of the draft water after a slope test is intended to verify whether there was no change in the draft water measured before the test. As such, even if there was no change in the conditions of weather, etc. due to the control of the vessel’s access at the time of a slope test, and if there was no change in the draft water, it does not affect the result of a slope test. Therefore, there was no evidence to prove that at the time, there was a need for re-measurement of the draft water or that the draft water measured before a slope test is inaccurate due to a change in weather, wave, etc.

(B) However, examining the following facts and circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the court of first instance in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, even without properly verifying the measurement data for the slope test on ○○○ at the time, did not prepare a false slope test report and submit it to the headquarters of Nonindicted Company 1 as if it was actually verified, thereby causing Nonindicted Company 1 to misunderstand that the slope test result was lawful, and at the time there was a risk of causing interference with the business of Nonindicted Company 1’s ship inspection.

① Under the Prepaid Inspection Regulations of Nonindicted Company 1, an inspector in charge of attending a slope test, including a slope test, shall, as far as possible, ensure that all data are accurately measured and recorded (see January 2, 1401), and a vessel shall be as completed as soon as possible, and the weight and location of each relevant item shall be confirmed and recorded on the basis of the list of unregistered and unnecessary payloads, and items to be re-reinned (see subparagraph b of February 1401). However, checking whether the slope test result in a regular inspection of the vessel is accurately calculated is the most fundamental duty of the ship inspector for maintaining the seaworthiness of the vessel, and to verify the accuracy of data measured for a slope test or the location and weight of the material that may affect the slope test result, it is not necessary to interpret the aforementioned provision as an essential duty of the vessel inspector, so it is not necessary to interpret the aforementioned provision as an essential duty of the vessel inspector.

(2) Even if it is practically impossible for a ship inspector to verify all basic data necessary for a slope test, the ship inspector shall directly verify the accuracy of each tank, such as the state and capacity of each tank, the location and weight of the US load and the goods to be loaded, etc., which may have a significant impact on the slope test result, and there is no room for other interested parties of the ship inspection, such as vessel owner, ship design company, shipbuilding yard or repair company, etc., to intervene in the process.

③ Nonindicted Company 1 requires that a ship inspector under its jurisdiction perform his duties fairly from an independent standpoint without being affected by the designer, manufacturer, supplier, owner, maintenance manager, or any other person of the vessel (the vessel pay and lecture rules 804.). This is intended to ensure that a ship inspector independently and fairly conducts his duties because the vessel design company, shipbuilding yard, repair company, etc. have a different interest with the vessel owner. Thus, the act of having a ship inspector conduct the work independently and fairly. As such, the act of having a ship inspector conduct the measurement of basic data for the slope test or receive the result of the measurement presented by him without any verification is in itself prejudicial to the propriety and fairness of the ship inspection. Furthermore, if a general ship inspector is a ship inspector, it is deemed that such circumstance can be sufficiently known. Thus, if a ship inspector had already received the result of measurement presented by the applicant for the inspection without any verification procedure, it can be deemed that the inspector has been aware of the risk that it would already interfere with the ship inspection work of Nonindicted Company 1.

(4) A ship inspector shall carry a body list while conducting the relevant inspection and check the results of the inspection at the site without omitting the items of the inspection (the procedure of the existing ship inspection by the company other than the public prosecution 1.1.6), verify whether the test results or measurement records submitted by the ship owner or shipbuilding yard, repair company, measuring company, etc. conform to relevant guidelines, and if appropriate, they shall be used for his/her duties (the procedure of the above inspection). If the ship inspector signs his/her name on the slope test result as if he/she did not go through such verification procedures without any substantial need to be seen as false, regardless of the contents of the test result.

⑤ However, in the course of a slope test for the regular inspection of ○○○, the Defendant directly measured matters that may have significant impacts on the slope test result, such as the condition and capacity of each tank, the location and weight of the material infinites or the material to be loaded, or entered the result of a slope test conducted by the ship design company at the time, in the slope test report as it is, and signed these procedures as if all were verified.

(C) On the other hand, the circumstances cited by the lower court are based on the intent of the relevant provisions of Nonindicted Company 1, or the independent interpretation of the relevant provisions of Nonindicted Company 1, which is difficult to grant credibility, and it is inappropriate to take the grounds of

(3) Second, we examine the part concerning interference with the business relating to the inspection of the Gangseo-type boarding device among the facts charged in the instant case.

(A) In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that it is difficult for the Defendant to recognize that there was a false perception that Nonindicted Co. 3 (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Co. 3”) was part of the examination body flight device, solely based on the fact that the Defendant was merely against the fact that Nonindicted Co. 3 was not designated as an excellent maintenance business entity with respect to the equipment to board the river system.

① Inspection of a load-type boarding system is conducted at the excellent maintenance business site selected by the owner of the ship. Nonindicted Co. 4, the owner of the ship, appointed Nonindicted Co. 3 as the inspector of a load-type boarding system under ○○, and the Defendant did not take part in the selection of an inspector of a load-type boarding system.

② By November 3, 2012, Nonindicted Co. 3 conducted maintenance and checkup, such as a sloping test, with respect to a sloping boarding device of ○○○○, pursuant to the regulations, and as a result, confirmed that the aforementioned sloping boarding device was normally operated. Nonindicted Co. 3 did not submit evidence to prove that the results of the examination conducted by Nonindicted Co. 3 on the said date and the details indicated in the sloping list are different from the facts.

③ Nonindicted Co. 3 was designated by the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries as an excellent maintenance business owner for life raft trees, and conducted an inspection of life raft trees, such as ○hoho Lake, during several years. In the interim inspection conducted around February 2014, Nonindicted Co. 3 was in charge of an inspection of a rainfall boarding device at the time of the interim inspection conducted around 00, and Nonindicted Co. 5 was also in charge of the inspection of Nonindicted Co. 1’s ship inspection. Nonindicted Co. 3 did not have been designated as an excellent maintenance business owner for life rafts, and confirmed the maintenance records from Nonindicted Co. 3.

(B) However, examining the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the first instance court’s duly adopted evidence in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, as long as the Defendant prepared a physical checkup as if he did not have any confirmation that Nonindicted Co. 3 was designated as an excellent maintenance business entity, he was aware that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the Defendant prepared a false physical checkup and that there was a risk of hindering Nonindicted Co. 1’s ship inspection-related affairs.

① Maintenance of ship's stores, such as a rainfall, is deemed to have passed the first ship inspection conducted when the company designated as an excellent maintenance business entity passes the self-inspection standard from the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs [Article 20 (1) through (3) of the former Ship Safety Act (amended by Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013)]. Thus, Nonindicted Co. 1 conducting ship inspection as an agent does not need to directly conduct an inspection of ship's stores, and it is sufficient to receive a record of maintenance or a certificate of maintenance from an enterprise designated as an excellent maintenance business entity.

② Nonindicted Co. 1 requires that a ship inspector under its jurisdiction submit maintenance records after ascertaining whether the place where the maintenance is performed is designated as an excellent maintenance business entity (Korean Government Agency Inspection Guidelines. 8 C. 2). As can be seen, the confirmation of an excellent maintenance business entity is an essential part of the inspection of maintenance of the vessel's stores.

③ Nonindicted Co. 1 posted the maintenance records, etc. for each maintenance business entity on its website so that it can easily be confirmed that the ship inspector who submitted maintenance records, etc. in relation to the maintenance inspection of ship's stores is designated as the excellent maintenance business entity.

④ Around April 2006, the Defendant joined Nonindicted Company 1 and worked as a ship inspector at Nonindicted Company 1’s △△ Branch from May 2007 to May 201, 201, and from May 2012 to the time of the instant case, Nonindicted Company 1’s △△ Branch had been working as an excellent maintenance business operator in the existing jurisdiction of Nonindicted Company 1’s △△ Branch, and there were only two existing facilities in the △△ Branch, so it could be easily confirmed that Nonindicted Company 3 was designated as an excellent maintenance business operator, and that Nonindicted Company 3 was not designated as an excellent maintenance business operator with respect to any vessel used goods. In addition, the Defendant was sufficiently aware that Nonindicted Company 3 was a business operator who did not have been designated as an excellent maintenance business operator.

⑤ However, the Defendant received a record of maintenance of a dial boarding device installed in ○○○○○ from Nonindicted Company 3, and stated that the said company did not go through any verification process as to whether it was an enterprise designated as an excellent maintenance business entity and, as such, there was no error in the inspection column of the dial boarding device.

(C) On the other hand, the circumstances cited by the court below are related to the procedures for selecting a ship's goods inspector who is unrelated to the Defendant's ship inspection business or based on the maintenance records that were submitted by Nonindicted Co. 3, who was not designated as an excellent maintenance business entity in relation to the vegetable boarding equipment, and cannot serve as the grounds for innocence. Moreover, the circumstances that another ship inspector did not undergo the same verification procedure are inappropriate to be considered as the grounds for

(4) Third, we examine the part concerning interference with business related to the inspection of the prior lamps among the facts charged in the instant case.

(A) In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is different from the fact that the Defendant indicated that the Defendant did not have any error in the discharge box of the check box, or that the Defendant had any intention to interfere with Nonindicted Company 1’s business.

① At the time when Nonindicted 6, who participated in the inspection of ○○○, was performing repair and extension works for ○○○○ in the first instance court, he testified that Nonindicted 6 appeared to have observed that the Defendant was moving to the lower court while closing the line lamps of DNA (D-Ck) and to inspect whether the light entered the line lamps. As such, it can be recognized that the Defendant was conducting light dumping and test on the line lamps at the time of conducting the inspection of ○○○○○.

② 공소외 1 회사의 점검 체크리스트에는 정기검사 시 선미 램프의 밀폐성(풍우밀성) 검사는 ‘호스 테스트 또는 이와 동등한 방법(hose testing or equivalent in case of SS)’으로 실시하도록 기재되어 있으나, 연차검사나 중간검사 시에는 육안검사 및 기능검사의 결과가 만족스러울 경우 참석한 검사관이 필요하다고 인정하지 않는 한 밀폐성 테스트를 할 필요가 없다(but during AS and IS, if the visual examination and function test have shown satisfactory results, the tightness test of shell door on Ro-Ro cargo ships need not be carried out unless considered necessary by the attending surveyor).’고 기재되어 있고, 이러한 규정에 의하면 램프의 틈새로 빛이 새어 들어오는지 여부를 육안으로 확인하는 빛투과 시험은 호스 테스트와 동등한 방법이 아니라고 해석될 여지가 있으나, ‘호스 테스트와 동등한 방법’을 구체적으로 설명하는 규정이 없으므로, 위와 같은 점검 체크리스트의 기재만을 근거로 피고인이 실시한 빛투과 시험이 호스 테스트와 동등한 방법이 아니라고 단정할 수 없다.

③ According to the statement in the reply to the fact-finding by Nonindicted Company 1, it can be acknowledged that Nonindicted Company 1 is using light dumping test, penology test, and ultra-frequency test as a check method having the same effect as that of the string test in checking the stormness. Thus, according to the standards set out in Nonindicted Company 1, it can be recognized that light dumping test in the tight light shielding test constitutes a method equal to that of the string test.

④ Even if the light dumping test conducted by the Defendant does not fall under the same method as that of the heading test, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant made a false statement that there was no error in the inspection column since the Defendant entered the result after examining the smuggling of the light lamps through the light dumping test.

⑤ It is difficult to readily conclude that Nonindicted Co. 4 had an error in the smuggling of the stern lamps at the time of the Defendant’s regular inspection of the vessel’s ○○, including Nonindicted Co. 4, which was conducted around February 2014, when conducting the interim inspection on the vessel’s ○○.

(B) However, examining the following facts and circumstances admitted by the court below and the first instance court based on the evidence duly admitted in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, insofar as the Defendant only confirmed fluority only by the surface inspection and functional inspection during the regular inspection process of 000 U.S. light lamps, and instead prepared the physical fitness test differently from the fact in the same manner as the Defendant did not have any verification in the same manner, it should be deemed that the Defendant was aware of the fact that there was a risk of impeding Nonindicted Company 1’s ship inspection’s work, and that there was a risk of impeding the Defendant’s ship inspection.

① The term “fung-ri” means the nature of water not invaded on a ship in any sea condition (Article 2 subparag. 9 of the Ship Full Load Line Standard), the vehicle area of a Kafa ship the navigation area of which is more than the coastal sea area is closed by wind (main sentence of Article 6(1) of the Kafa ship’s structure, equipment, etc.). Since the gafa ship’s surface, players’s name, stern door, etc. must be stormed (main sentence of Article 7(2) of the above Standards). At the time, the inspection of 00 U.S. light light at the time was to verify whether such a gaf has such gafa.

② The physical stress test, which requires Nonindicted Company 1 to prepare with regard to the method of controlling the safety of the stern lamps, is to be inspected and displayed when there is no error in the results of a regular inspection. The annual inspection or interim inspection is to ensure that it can be confirmed only by the cryp test and functional test. This is to allow the confirmation of the crypity in a more simple manner for the efficiency of the annual inspection or interim inspection conducted after a regular inspection, as such, in a case where the crypity is verified by the basic method, such as the cryp test, which directly inspects the water into the stern lamps with certain pressure. Thus, it is clear that the cryp test and functional test permitted in the annual inspection or interim inspection have the same effect as the cryp test.

③ Meanwhile, in the police investigation, the Defendant stated to the effect that he/she conducted the draft and operation (functional) test on the stern lamps, or stated from the prosecutor’s investigation that he/she inspected whether the sunlight entered the ground with a light on which he/she posted a line lamps enter the ground, and thereafter starting from the first instance trial, he/she asserted the above method of inspection as so-called “light dumping test.” Even according to such statement, the method of inspection conducted by the Defendant at the time does not substantially differ from that of the annual and interim inspections, and as such, the method of inspection cannot be confirmed properly as to whether rainwater or sea water intrudes in addition to the invasion of the sunlight, the above method of inspection asserted by the Defendant cannot be deemed as a method of inspection having the effect equivalent to the field test.

④ Although the Defendant did not conduct a storming test with respect to the stern lamps of 00, the Defendant stated the test differently from the fact that the Defendant conducted a test with “the heading test or an equivalent method” in the physical stress.

(C) On the other hand, among the circumstances cited by the lower court, it is difficult to believe that the result of the fact-finding reply by Nonindicted Company 1 was without any explanation on the specific grounds that the light dumping test is deemed as a method equal to that of the ice test, or that the result of the interim inspection on ○○○, which was conducted around February 2014, did not conduct a ice test on the whole of the ray at the time, in light of the statements made by Nonindicted Party 5’s investigation agency, it is not appropriate to grant credibility even in light of the vessel operator Nonindicted Party 5’s statement that it was not possible to grant credibility.

(5) Fourth, the part concerning interference with the inspection of the entrance entrance of the fourth passenger room among the facts charged in the instant case is examined.

(A) In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s false pass label to the effect that the Defendant did not have any error in the verification column, such as the residence and sanitary equipment of the check list, without any corrective instruction, despite being aware of the extension of the entrance of the fourth-story passenger room or the change in the location, different from the drawings approved by the Nonindicted Party 1’s headquarters, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

① The “○○” drawing approved by Nonindicted Company 1’s headquarters on December 28, 2012 and January 22, 2013, which was approved on December 2013, 2013, indicated the number of the entrance doors of the fourth passenger room. However, Nonindicted Company 7 installed two entrance doors of the fourth passenger room in the direction on the port side, 4, and 12 in the direction at the center of the central guest room, respectively, before the slope test was conducted.

② Before conducting a ship inspection with respect to ○○, the Defendant failed to be notified by Nonindicted Co. 4 or Nonindicted Co. 8 on the change of the number of entrance doors, and there was a fact that was measured with the ceiling height, etc. at the site at the time of changing the entrance entrance of the fourth-story passenger room, but it was determined that the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the number of entrance doors at the time of conducting an inspection with respect to ○○○○ was different from that of the drawings by setting up the number of entrance doors or not raising any doubt as to the difference between the drawings.

③ According to Article 15 of the Ship Equipment Standards Act, two or more entrances shall be installed in a passenger room of a vessel with a seating capacity of at least 50 passengers and a passenger room of a vessel operating in high speed with a seating capacity of less than 50 passengers, and one or more entrances shall be installed in a passenger room with a seating capacity of less than 50 passengers. As seen above, since the number of entrance doors of the passenger room installed differently from the drawings exceeds the legal standard, if an application was filed for approval of modification to the drawings of Nonindicted Company 4 was made inasmuch as the number of entrance doors of the passenger room exceeds the legal standard, it would not have any particular difficulty in obtaining approval from Nonindicted Company 1, and there is no reason to deem that the extension of the entrance at the time of conducting a regular inspection by the Defendant does not have to be known

(B) However, examining the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the court below and the first instance court in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is sufficient to view that the Defendant had fully known the circumstances where the number and location of the entrance of the fourth floor passenger room was changed at the time. Nevertheless, insofar as the Defendant stated differently to the purport that the Defendant conforms with the drawings approved in the verification column of the physical checkup, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was aware of not only the perception that the Defendant was to prepare a false physical checkup risk, but also that there was a risk of impeding Nonindicted Company 1’s work related to the ship inspection.

(1) A ship inspector has the duty to verify whether the drawings of a ship approved by a shipowner are the same as the structure or form of the actual ship, and such confirmation duty is the basic duty of a ship inspector, which is the one for which the number or location of the entrance of a ship is consistent with the approved drawings, is the one for which the general ship inspector can confirm easily if the general ship inspector is not much required with expert knowledge.

② From October 2012 to February 2013, the Defendant: (a) during the process of repairing and expanding ○○ho Lake from around 10, 2012 to around 2013; (b) examined the process of the said construction; (c) confirmed that the said construction was conducted in the same manner as the approved drawings; and (d) actually measured the height of the ceiling at the construction site of the fourth-story passenger room; and (e) did not know that the number and location of the entrance of the fourth-story passenger room was changed in the process, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant was not aware of the change.

③ Although Nonindicted Co. 4 and Nonindicted Co. 8, who did not take charge of the construction of the fourth floor passenger room entrance of ○○○, appears to have been aware of the change in the number and location of the entrance at the time, it is not completely persuasive that only the Defendant did not know such change at the time of the ship inspection.

④ Meanwhile, even though the number of entrance doors installed in the ○○○-ho fourth passenger room meets the requirements for the number of entrance doors prescribed in the vessel facility standards, Article 15 of the vessel facility standards does not simply stipulate the number of passenger entrances of a ship, but also stipulates the suitability requirements for properly securing the function of entrance such as the place where the entrance is installed, width, and the entrance. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that Nonindicted Company 1 approved the changed drawings solely on the ground that the number of entrance doors installed in the ○○-ho fourth passenger room satisfies the above criteria.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise, that it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s intentional obstruction of business with respect to the part concerning the obstruction of business related to slope tests, rainfall-type boarding equipment, light lamps, and the fourth floor passenger room entrance inspection among the instant facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intention of the crime of interference with business, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2. As to interference with the inspection of extension of the fifth floor exhibition room

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize the Defendant’s false pass label to the effect that there was no error in the column of confirmation, such as residence and sanitary equipment of the check list, without being informed of the fact that the construction of the central structure was conducted in the five-story exhibition room different from the drawings approved by Nonindicted Company 1’s headquarters, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even though the Defendant was aware that the construction of the central structure was conducted in the five-story exhibition room, unlike the drawings approved by its headquarters.

① In the general drawing of ○○○○ approved by Nonindicted Company 1’s headquarters on February 6, 2013, the central structure was not indicated in the five-story exhibition room, and the central structure was not installed in the five-story exhibition room at the time a slope test for ○○○, etc. was conducted. The shape line of a multimond structure is limited to a food line with a thickness of 1m, which is to be installed on the floor. Since Nonindicted Company 7 installed the central structure in Incheon around March 2013, which was after the regular inspection of ○○○○○, around March 2013, it was difficult for the Defendant to expect that the central structure was installed in the five-story exhibition room based on the general drawing and the land proposal at the time of conducting the inspection of ○○○○○.

② As a result of the slope test conducted at the time of the slope test on ○○○, it included “DECK COVERINGINININ ESOBITAL” 40t as an object to be loaded at the time of the completion of the vessel, but it cannot be deemed that the Defendant was aware that the Damon-type structure was installed at the center of the fiveth floor exhibition room in the future on the ground that it was added in relation to the floor construction.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is acceptable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical

3. Scope of reversal

Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning interference with the inspection of slope tests, rainfall-type boarding vehicles, light lamps, and the entrance of the fourth-class passenger room should be reversed for the reasons as seen earlier. Since this part of the judgment is related to a comprehensive crime with the remainder of the facts charged, the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-ok (Presiding Justice)