All
| TITLE | Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do8335 Decided December 21, 2017 【Violation of the Aviation Security Act; Coercion; Interference with Business; Obstruction of the Execution of Official Duties by Fraudulent Means; Destruction of Evidence (Convicted Crime: Solicitation of Destruction of Evidence); Concealment of Evidence (Convicted Crime: Solicitation of Concealment of Evidence); Leakage of Secrets on Official Duties】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
|
[1] Meaning of “aviation route” as stipulated under Article 42 of the Aviation Security Act Whether the ground passage along which an aircraft transits from the time all its doors close after the passengers board until the time all its doors open for their disembarkation is encompassed by the term “aviation route” (negative) [2] In a case where the Defendant, Vice President of Airline Company A, was indicted on charges of violation of the Aviation Security Act on grounds that she: (a) boarded one of the airline’s planes scheduled to depart from a foreign airport for Korea; (b) was upset by the way the assigned flight attendant offered passenger services and verbally abused the flight attendant; (c) had the pilot alter the course of the aircraft on a pushback away from the boarding bridge in the ramp and return to the boarding gate to drop off the crew member; and (d) thereby caused the alteration of the aviation route of an aircraft in flight by force, the case holding that the Defendant’s act of having the aircraft on a pushback phase return to the boarding gate does not constitute causing the alteration of the aviation route of an aircraft |
|
