If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Defendant

A is an operator of “D”.

피고인은 2012. 11. 28. 14:10경 화성시 E 자신이 운영하는 ‘D’에서 닭튀김 기계에 전원을 연결하여 예열시키던 중 화장실을 가게 되었다.

In this case, if the place is fluored, there was a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of a fire due to the excessive heat of the fluoring machine by blocking all of the fluor, but the fluoring machine was overheated due to the negligence of the fluoring the fluor, and the fire occurred.

As a result, the Defendant’s inside of the D, which caused the damage of KRW 13 million to “G” operated by F, and caused the damage of KRW 38 million to “I” operated by H, and continuously destroyed the property equivalent to KRW 2 million attached to H to “K” operated by J.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Testimony for a witness;

1. Entry of witnesses M in the third protocol of trial;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to A, H, F, and J;

1. A report on the occurrence of a fire, investigation report, on-site photo, report on the results of field identification, fire-proof report, fire-proof report, official document as a result of fire on-site identification, report on the results of fire-prevention at the fire site identification, report on the results of fire-prevention at the fire site identification, official document and written opinion

1. Application of each written estimate statutes;

1. Article 170 (1) and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Punishment provided for in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for the crime of realization of a building used by the biggest H with the highest concurrent crimes (Punishment provided for in the crime of realization of a building used by the largest H);

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel are all edible milk remaining in the cover of “D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) 1 of the Defendant’s “D” as a result of the appraisal by the National Scientific Investigation Institute.