However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant is a business owner who operates the second floor of a commercial building located in Daegu Seo-gu C with the trade name of “D”.

On May 2, 2017, the Defendant: (a) 21:10 on May 2, 2017, in a condition under which a frode pande is put on the left side of the gas set up on the left side of the gas set up and froshed with food oil.

The work was carried out such as the Dong.

At the time, the Defendant used gas bags to make customers an order, and thus, in such a case, the Defendant had a duty of care to manage and supervise the Defendant so that it does not go to another place in using gas bags.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not see whether the above gas has been in place properly, and thus, it was turned to the wind on the right side whether the food oil on the Ropan is gas, and then the fire was spread to the front line.

Ultimately, the Defendant: (a) destroyed a building with the second floor of the commercial building owned by a person in possession of the victim E due to such occupational negligence to have approximately KRW 80,206,611 of the repair cost; (b) the inside part of the building, and stairs ($ 132 square meters) owned by the victim E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. On-site photographs and reports on the results of field meals;

1. 공사 견� 서 법령의 적용

1. Articles 171, 170 (1), and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the selection of imprisonment without prison labor, for the crimes under relevant Article of the Criminal Act;

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act are the sentencing factors unfavorable to the Defendant, such as the instant fire and its damage caused by the Defendant’s business situation and room, considerable amount of damage, and the failure to completely recover from damage.

On the other hand, the defendant confessions the crime of this case, the fact that the defendant gives up the lease deposit and agreed with the victim, and the fire insurance to which the victim joined.