The judgment below

According to its reasoning, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the fire safety control of the apartment of this case does not constitute “the act of fire-fighting systems, etc. in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes” under Articles 50 subparag. 6 and 20(8) of the former Fire-Fighting Systems Act, even if the F did not demand any measures against the defendant with the knowledge that some of the fire-fighting systems of this case is maintained and managed in an isolated state by the fire-fighting systems of this case as an employee of the defendant.

In light of the records, the court below's finding of facts and determination are just, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principle of Article 20 (8) of the former Fire-Fighting Systems Act, or in exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation by violating logical and empirical rules.

In addition, the prosecutor asserts that the court below should have deliberated on the violation of Article 9 (3) of the former Fire-Fighting System Act with respect to the facts charged in this case. However, since the facts charged in this case and the facts charged in Article 9 (3) of the former Fire-Fighting System Act are recognized as identical to the facts charged in this case and the facts charged in this case can be recognized without changing the indictment, the court below's decision on the violation of Article 20 (8) of the former Fire-Fighting System Act

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.