The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. 항소 이유의 요지( 사실 오인) 검사가 제출한 증거들을 종합하면, 피고인에게는 기상상황이 매우 악화되고 B에 물이 찼음에도 가까운 구계 항으로 피 항하지 아니하고 삼사항으로 회항한 과실이 있고, 이로 인하여 위 선박이 침몰되었음을 인정할 수 있다.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged of this case.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the captain and owner of B (1.37 tons, hereinafter “instant vessel”) who is a fishing ground management vessel at the time of taking measures against the Gyeongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-gu.

On May 12, 2019, at around 10:07, the Defendant got on board the instant vessel along with C in order to recover the U.S. from a triggal port located in Sejong-ri, Sejong-ri, a seafarer, in order to collect the U.S. basin.

At the time, average wave was 0.9m high, and customs was 8.5 to 8.9m / S's north wind, so in such a case, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent the sinking accident by stopping navigation to the destination and stopping it to the safe port immediately after the arrival, as a person responsible for the operation and management of the vessel.

Nevertheless, the Defendant thought that the Defendant was able to take up the instant vessel that had been sailing at a high wave even prior to the departure and that the Defendant would be subject to the fine even at this time, and that the Defendant was negligent in taking navigation as it was, around 10:30 on the same day, by negligence, around 0.2 nautical miles from the old Riverside (North Korea’s 36Do19/14, east 129/23/08, east 129/100, east 129/28, east east 129.30, east east 100, east 100, and east 129/23/08, east east 129.

B. The lower court determined: (1) in order to return the instant vessel to the old-way port nearest ten minutes after the Defendant first trying to return to the third party, the direction of the instant vessel.