Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Powered water leisure craft, the Ship Crew Act and the seafarer licence
Supreme Court, Dec. 28, 2023, 2020Do12396 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 선박직원법위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a powered water leisure craft under the former Act on the Safety of Water Leisure counts as a ship to which the former Ship Crew Act applies, must a person serving as a crew member on it hold a seafarer licence, and does serving without such a licence attract punishment under Article 27(ii) of that Act?
Holding
Yes on both counts. The former Ship Crew Act does not exclude powered water leisure craft under the water leisure safety legislation from the definition of ship, and that legislation contains no provision taking such craft out of the Act or exempting them from holding a seafarer licence. A person serving as a crew member on such craft must therefore hold the seafarer licence set by job and grade, and serving without it is punishable under Article 27(ii) of the former Ship Crew Act.
Points at issue, verbatim
구 수상레저안전법상의 동력수상레저기구가 구 선박직원법의 적용을 받는 선박에 해당하는 경우, 동력수상레저기구에도 구 선박직원법이 적용되는지 여부(적극) 및 그러한 동력수상레저기구에 선박직원으로 승무하려면 구 선박직원법령에서 정한 해기사 면허를 보유해야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Where a motorized water leisure craft under the former Marine Leisure Safety Act falls under a vessel subject to the former Ship Officers Act, whether the former Ship Officers Act applies to the motorized water leisure craft as well (affirmative), and whether, in order to serve as a ship's officer on such a motorized water leisure craft, one must hold the seafarer's license prescribed by the former Ship Officers Act and its subordinate statutes (affirmative)
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Circumstances weighed Stated in the decision
구 선박직원법은 수상레저안전법령상의 동력수상레저기구를 선박에서 제외하고 있지 않고 구 수상레저안전법령도 동력수상레저기구에 관하여 구 선박직원법령상의 선박에서 제외하거나 해기사 면허의 보유를 면제하는 규정을 두고 있지 않은 점 등을 종합하여 살펴보면,
Unofficial English translation
taking a comprehensive look at, among other things, the fact that the former Ship Officers Act does not exclude motorized water leisure craft under the Marine Leisure Safety Act and its subordinate statutes from vessels, and that the former Marine Leisure Safety Act and its subordinate statutes do not contain provisions excluding motorized water leisure craft from vessels under the former Ship Officers Act or exempting them from holding a seafarer's license,
Factors
- 구 선박직원법이 적용되는 선박에 선박직원으로 승무하려는 사람은 직종과 등급별로 정해진 해기사 면허를 가지고 있어야 하는지 여부(적극)
- 그러한 해기사 면허 없이 선박직원으로 승무한 행위는 같은 법 제27조 제2호에 따라 형사처벌되는지 여부(적극)
- 구 수상레저안전법상의 동력수상레저기구가 구 선박직원법의 적용을 받는 선박에 해당하는 경우
- 구 선박직원법령에서 정한 해기사 면허를 보유해야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
• Whether a person who intends to serve as a ship's officer on a vessel to which the former Ship Officers Act applies must hold the seafarer's license prescribed by occupation and grade (affirmative)
• Whether an act of serving as a ship's officer without such a seafarer's license is criminally punished under Article 27, subparagraph 2 of the same Act (affirmative)
• Where a motorized water leisure craft under the former Marine Leisure Safety Act falls under a vessel subject to the former Ship Officers Act
• Whether one must hold the seafarer's license prescribed by the former Ship Officers Act and its subordinate statutes (affirmative)
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
위와 같은 구 선박직원법령과 구 수상레저안전법령의 입법 취지, 구 선박직원법은 수상레저안전법령상의 동력수상레저기구를 선박에서 제외하고 있지 않고 구 수상레저안전법령도 동력수상레저기구에 관하여 구 선박직원법령상의 선박에서 제외하거나 해기사 면허의 보유를 면제하는 규정을 두고 있지 않은 점 등을 종합하여 살펴보면
Unofficial English translation
taking a comprehensive look at the legislative purpose of the former Ship Officers Act and the former Marine Leisure Safety Act as described above, and the fact that the former Ship Officers Act does not exclude motorized water leisure craft under the Marine Leisure Safety Act and its subordinate statutes from vessels, and that the former Marine Leisure Safety Act and its subordinate statutes do not contain provisions excluding motorized water leisure craft from vessels under the former Ship Officers Act or exempting them from holding a seafarer's license, among other things,
Decisions referred to
해당 본문 참조
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When a person sails a powered water leisure craft on their own leisure trip, does that person serve as a 'crew member' so that the seafarer licence requirement applies at all?
A later decision on when the operator of a powered water leisure craft counts as a crew member under the Ship Crew Act would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to the definition of ship in Article 2(1) of the Ship Crew Act, to Article 3 of its Enforcement Decree, or to the categories of powered water leisure craft in the Enforcement Decree to the Act on the Safety of Water Leisure.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
5 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 5 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 4 (form of the test), axis 6 (relation to precedent), axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Circumstances weighed” vs Independent “Elements stated”
The primary reads the court as weighing overall considerations, while the independent reading reads it as stating a requirement for licence holding. The text states the rule as a legal conclusion drawn from the statutory structure, so either label can be defended.
구 수상레저안전법상의 동력수상레저기구가 구 선박직원법의 적용을 받는 선박에 해당하는 경우, 동력수상레저기구에도 구 선박직원법이 적용되는지 여부(적극)Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
The primary treats the holding as a new standard for leisure craft, while the independent reading could not confirm the precedent relationship, since the holding field is empty and the text gives no clear link to earlier cases.
위와 같은 구 선박직원법령과 구 수상레저안전법령의 입법 취지, 구 선박직원법은 수상레저안전법령상의 동력수상레저기구를 선박에서 제외하고 있지 않고 구 수상레저안전법령도 동력수상레저기구에 관하여 구 선박직원법령상의 선박에서 제외하거나 해기사 면허의 보유를 면제하는 규정을 두고 있지 않은 점 등을 종합하여 살펴보면Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “When a person sails a powered water leisure craft on their own leisure trip, does that person serve as a 'crew member' so that the seafarer licence requirement applies at all?” vs Independent “How should the relevant ship officer role and required license category be determined for different forms of leisure craft operation?”
The primary asks whether a person sailing a craft for personal leisure is a crew member at all, while the independent reading asks more broadly how the role and licence category should vary with the form of operation. The primary question is narrower.
구 수상레저안전법상의 동력수상레저기구가 구 선박직원법의 적용을 받는 선박에 해당하는 경우, 동력수상레저기구에도 구 선박직원법이 적용되는지 여부(적극) 및 그러한 동력수상레저기구에 선박직원으로 승무하려면 구 선박직원법령에서 정한 해기사 면허를 보유해야 하는지 여부(적극)Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Changwon District Court, sitting on appeal, in its judgment of 20 August 2020 (2019No2197), kept the first-instance finding of guilt on sailing a yacht of over 5 tonnes from Japan to a Korean port without a seafarer licence. It reasoned that the yacht imported by the defendant was in principle subject to the former Ship Crew Act, that the Act was displaced only within the range in which the former Act on the Safety of Water Leisure applied to the yacht, and that the yacht operated from Japan to Korea for import was outside that Act, so that the Ship Crew Act applied to that voyage.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had described the law partly inappropriately: even a powered water leisure craft under the former Act on the Safety of Water Leisure must be crewed under the Ship Crew Act by a holder of the seafarer licence that legislation requires, so the two statutes do not take the craft out of each other's range. It found no error in the conclusion that the defendant's conduct constituted an offence under the Ship Crew Act, and dismissed the appeal, unanimously. The ground that a lighter sentence was excessive was not a lawful ground of appeal under Article 383(iv) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Distinguishing conditions
- A craft that falls within an exclusion in the proviso to Article 2(1) of the former Ship Crew Act or in Article 3 of its Enforcement Decree, such as a vessel under 5 tonnes of total tonnage or one driven mainly by oars and sails.
- A person who is not serving as a crew member within the meaning of the former Ship Crew Act, so that the licence requirement for crew does not reach the conduct.
- Conduct governed by the Act on the Safety of Water Leisure as wholly amended on 10 June 2022 or by the Ship Crew Act as amended on 18 February 2020, since the decision applied the earlier versions of both.
Record verification notes
Fix the date and place of the voyage first, since the Court's reasoning turned on the range in which the water leisure safety legislation reached the craft. Then check the craft against the tonnage and use exclusions in the proviso to Article 2(1) of the former Ship Crew Act and Article 3 of its Enforcement Decree, and against the categories of powered water leisure craft, sailing yachts included, in Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree to the water leisure Act. Finally, record the job and grade in which the defendant served and the licence that job and grade required.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 선박직원법이 적용되는 선박에 선박직원으로 승무하려는 사람은 직종과 등급별로 정해진 해기사 면허를 가지고 있어야 하는지 여부(적극) 및 그러한 해기사 면허 없이 선박직원으로 승무한 행위는 같은 법 제27조 제2호에 따라 형사처벌되는지 여부(적극) [2] 구 수상레저안전법상의 동력수상레저기구가 구 선박직원법의 적용을 받는 선박에 해당하는 경우, 동력수상레저기구에도 구 선박직원법이 적용되는지 여부(적극) 및 그러한 동력수상레저기구에 선박직원으로 승무하려면 구 선박직원법령에서 정한 해기사 면허를 보유해야 하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a person who intends to serve as a ship's officer on a vessel to which the former Ship Officers Act applies must hold the seafarer's license prescribed by occupation and grade (affirmative), and whether an act of serving as a ship's officer without such a seafarer's license is criminally punished under Article 27, subparagraph 2 of the same Act (affirmative) [2] Where a motorized water leisure craft under the former Marine Leisure Safety Act falls under a vessel subject to the former Ship Officers Act, whether the former Ship Officers Act applies to the motorized water leisure craft as well (affirmative), and whether, in order to serve as a ship's officer on such a motorized water leisure craft, one must hold the seafarer's license prescribed by the former Ship Officers Act and its subordinate statutes (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 선박직원법(2020. 2. 18. 법률 제17029호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조, 제2조 제1호, 제4조, 제5조, 제27조 제2호, 구 선박직원법 시행령(2023. 10. 17. 대통령령 제33814호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조, 구 선박안전법(2017. 10. 31. 법률 제15002호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제1호 [2] 구 선박직원법(2020. 2. 18. 법률 제17029호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조, 제2조 제1호, 제4조, 제5조, 제27조 제2호, 구 선박직원법 시행령(2023. 10. 17. 대통령령 제33814호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제3조, 구 수상레저안전법(2022. 6. 10. 법률 제18958호로 전부 개정되기 전의 것) 제1조, 제2조 제1호, 제3호, 제4호, 제4조 제1항(현행 제5조 제1항 참조), 제2항(현행 제5조 제2항 참조), 구 수상레저안전법 시행령(2017. 7. 26. 대통령령 제28217호로 개정되기 전의 것) 제2조 제1항 제2호(현행 제2조 제1항 제4호 참조), 제2항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger