The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for two years.

Defendant

B and.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legislative purpose of the former Act on the Prevention of Danger of Collision, the navigation rules prescribed in the preceding Act may be applied on the premise of the risk of collision. However, in cases where there is an imminent danger in light of the provisions of Article 96(2) of the former Act on the Prevention of Collision, the navigation rules prescribed in the preceding Act, such as the overtaking, cannot be applied as they are, in all cases, to the navigation rules prescribed in the preceding Act.

On the other hand, the time of the application of the overtaking method is 06:01:45 when the risk of the collision occurred by entering the open interest channel corresponding to a narrow channel, and the above time is 46 seconds before the collision, and there was an imminent danger of the collision as stipulated in Article 96(2) of the former Act.

Since the defendants' way to overtake G operated by the defendants is excluded from the application of the rules.

B) In accordance with the delegation of the former Act, the ship owner performed the duty of night duty to Defendant B in accordance with the safety management system established by the ship owner.

Defendant B may not be deemed to have been negligent in the course of business in the occurrence of the instant accident only by violating the safety management manual.

It shall not be readily concluded.

2) In light of the fact that: (a) there are competition between the negligence of I in the occurrence of the instant accident; (b) the Defendants rescued part of the victims immediately after the occurrence of the accident; and (c) the Defendants are scheduled to deposit KRW 600 million through G insurance associations; (b) the sentence sentenced by the lower court against the Defendants (as for Defendant A: three years of imprisonment without prison labor; (c) one year and six months of imprisonment without prison labor; and (d) three years of suspended execution) are excessively unreasonable.

B. In light of the details of the instant crime committed by the prosecutor, the degree of damage, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is deemed to be excessively uneasible.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of legal principles

A. Determination on the assertion that the application of the overtaking method is excluded, 1) The lower court at the time of applying the overtaking method, 1) the prior method of determining the overtaking method.