2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant include the fact that the defendant recognized his/her criminal act and reflected his/her criminal act, the present elevator safety inspection was performed by concluding a comprehensive elevator maintenance contract, the complement of all pointed out matters about fire-fighting systems, and the absence of the same power, etc.

However, the operation of an elevator which has not undergone a regular inspection is likely to seriously affect the safety of elevator users.

Therefore, in light of the fact that the defendant's period of operation of an elevator was shorter, and the act of failing to comply with an order of the chief of a fire station concerning a fire-fighting system without any justifiable reason is a crime that may cause indirect harm to the lives, bodies, and property of many people in the event of a fire, disaster, accident, or other emergency, the crime liability is not easy, and all other sentencing conditions in the records of this case, such as the defendant's age, environment, and sexual behavior, are taken into account, and it is difficult to see that the sentencing of the court below is too excessive and unfair. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition [Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, since the Act on Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (amended by Act No. 13917, Jan. 27, 2016) was enforced after the judgment of the court below, the “Act on Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems” among the judgment below pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure is amended to “former Fire Prevention and Fire-Fighting Systems Act (amended by Act No. 13917, Jan. 27, 2016).”