TITLE	Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do6809 Decided November 12, 2015 [full Text]
Summary
[1] Where failure to perform a specific act takes on the meaning of omission under the criminal law / Whether infringement on legal interest due to omission can be regarded as a commission of crime in cases of a crime committable by omission or action, and whether the duty to act is recognized even in cases where such duty is anticipated under the good faith principle or social rules or sound reasoning (affirmative) / Standard for determining the content of intent in a crime committable by omission or action, and for determining whether there was willfulness by a person under the duty to act [2] Where an entire ship carrying passengers, etc. faces danger, whether a captain is legally obligated to actively and continuously carry out rescue efforts until safety is ultimately secured for everyone on board the ship (affirmative), and whether the captain and crew is obligated to actively search and rescue passengers or other crew members in distress (affirmative) / Where omission by a captain or other crew members is equivalent to the commission of murder by action under the criminal law when passengers and crew on a ship in distress are unable to cope with imminent life-threatening situations / Where causal link is established between omission and death [3] Where Defendant A (a captain), Defendant B (a first officer), and Defendant C (a second officer) were charged with murder and attempted murder for abandoning ship without carrying out any rescue efforts ¡ª even though passengers, etc. relied on announcements, etc. and waited inside the tilted ship that was beginning to sink ¡ª and for causing them to drown to death or letting them die, the case affirming the lower court¡¯s judgment that it was difficult to regard the omission by Defendants B and C as equal to the act of murder, and that it was hard to conclude whether Defendants B and C, by willful negligence, took part in Defendant A¡¯s commission of murder by omission [4] Whether a captain and crew of a ship in distress who personally provided a cause for an accident is included in the Article 18(1) proviso (¡°the captain and crew of a ship that has provided a cause for an accident¡±) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act (affirmative) [5] Standard for determining the content of ¡°necessary measures to swiftly rescue persons in distress¡± under the proviso of Article 18(1) of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act, and whether such measures were dutifully performed [6] Whether the offense prescribed under Article 5-12 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established when a captain or crew of a ship who committed a crime prescribed under Article 268 of the Criminal Act by transportation of the ship leaves the scene of accident before performing duties prescribed under the Article 18(1) proviso of the Rescue and Aid at Sea and in the River Act (affirmative), and whether the aforementioned crime is only established under limited circumstances where a crime prescribed under Article 268 of the Criminal Act is committed by ¡°collision between ships¡± or ¡°negligence in steering¡± (negative) / Standard for determining the degree of measures to be taken by a captain or crew who caused an accident pursuant to the Article 18(1) proviso of the above Act, and for determining whether the captain or crew left the scene of accident with the intent to escape before taking such measures

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2014Da81542 Decided November 17, 2015¡¼Insurance Proceeds¡½
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1051 Decided October 29, 2015¡¼Wage Payment, etc.¡½