소방시설설치ㆍ유지및안전관리에관한법률위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The purport of the Act on Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles) is to prevent a fire by conducting a fire inspection at least once a year at least at a certain time. In light of the lower court’s reasoning, it would result in the failure to conduct a fire inspection for about one year and nine months, and it would be contrary to the purport of the said Act. Fire inspection conducted by the Defendant as of May 10, 201 by February 18, 2014.
Although the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case that the fire-fighting inspection was not conducted within the period until February 28, 2015, the lower court acquitted the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. The summary of the facts charged is a person who serves as a representative fire safety manager of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Commercial Building Management Division.
A person related to a specific fire-fighting object with a total floor area of 2,00 square meters or more which has a place of business of a public use business, such as singing rooms, shall conduct a comprehensive precise inspection on fire-fighting systems, etc. installed in such objects at least once a year until the month in which approval for the use of the building is granted.
Nevertheless, the Defendant did not conduct a comprehensive precise inspection of the fire-fighting systems until February 28, 2015, which was the end of the month to which the approval date for the use of the building belongs with respect to C commercial buildings on the first floor of the building.
3. Determination
A. The lower court determined that the Defendant was subject to a comprehensive precise inspection on May 10, 2014 when he was investigated by the police by February 28, 2014, which was the end of the month to which the approval date for the use of the above building belongs, on the grounds that the Defendant did not conduct a comprehensive precise inspection by February 28, 2014, which was the end of the month to which the approval date for the use of the above building belongs, and the Defendant was subject to a comprehensive precise inspection on May 10, 2014, and the Defendant was subject to a comprehensive precise inspection by the prosecutor on June 13, 2014.