A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, although the Defendant is not the owner or possessor of private electrical facilities who is the subject of obligation to undergo a regular inspection under Article 65 of the Electric Business Act, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by deeming that the Defendant violated the above regular inspection obligation and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 500,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant is fully recognized as the possessor of electric installations for private use, who is obligated to undergo a regular inspection under Article 65 of the Electric Utility Act.

① After completing the business registration with the trade name “D”, the Defendant, as his representative, installed private water supply system (hereinafter “electric facilities of this case”) at the former North-Gun C Factory (hereinafter “instant factory”) and operated a wood processing business. On July 1, 2013, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with K to sell all of the sites, buildings, and machinery and office fixtures of the instant factory. On August 26, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said site, building, etc., G, the father of K, but the said site, building, etc. was not paid part of the purchase price, and was occupied until now without delivering the said building.

② The purport of Article 65 of the Electric Utility Business Act stipulating the duty of regular inspection of the possessor of electric installations is to ensure public safety, and the nature of the possessor’s right is not problematic as to whether the duty of regular inspection is recognized or not.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the leased electric installations are not limited to the possession thereof, and the sales amount for the electric installations subject to sale, such as the Defendant.