업무상과실폭발성물건파열등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
The summary of the grounds for appeal is unfair because each sentence (one million won per fine) imposed by the court below on the Defendants is too unreasonable.
Judgment
It is recognized that the Defendants were the first offender, the Defendants agreed with the owners and lessees of the instant 202 in the investigative agency, and the owners of the damaged vehicles appear to have been compensated by the mutual aid insurance covered by Defendant A.
However, in this case, Defendant A, the representative director of Defendant B corporation, neglected the duty of safety inspection of gas-using facilities as a liquefied petroleum gas dealer, and thus, an explosion accident in the instant case was occurred. Although there was no resident's absence, human life accident was not caused, the risk and the result are very serious.
In full view of the above circumstances and other factors, Defendant A’s age, sexual conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants cannot be deemed to be unfair due to excessive fault.
Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.
In conclusion, the defendants' appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since the defendants' appeal is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.