소방기본법위반
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles) at the time of the instant case, the fire-fighting crew members, who were the patients, moved to an emergency room, prepared an emergency log immediately after the accident, and could resume the emergency operations at any time when the emergency situation occurred to D, and the emergency situation concerning the body of the patient was completely terminated by only transferring D to an emergency room.
As such, the defendant's act constitutes an act that is likely to obstruct the emergency medical service activities of fire-fighters.
2. Determination
(a) The purpose of this Act is to contribute to maintaining public peace and order and promoting welfare by preventing, alerting or extinguishing fires, and by protecting the lives, bodies and property of citizens through rescue and first-aid services, etc. in times of fires, calamities, disasters, and other emergency situations;
Article 16 (Fire-Fighting Activities) (1) The head of a fire-fighting headquarters, the head of a fire-fighting headquarters, or the head of a fire station shall dispatch a fire brigade to the scene to conduct activities necessary for fire-fighting, such as extinguishing fires, saving lives, and first-aid services, when any fire, disaster, or other emergency situation occurs.
(2) No person shall interfere with fire-fighting activities, such as the extinguishment of a fire brigade, lifesaving, first-aid services, etc. dispatched under paragraph (1) without justifiable grounds.
The definitions of terms used in Article 2 (Definition) of the Rescue and Emergency Medical Services Act shall be as follows:
3. The term "emergency medical services" means services involving consultation, emergency treatment, transportation, etc. conducted for emergency patients;
Except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts, this Act shall apply to rescue operations and emergency medical services under Article 5 (Relation with other Acts).
B. The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, was insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant obstructed the activities of fire fighters, and there is no other evidence to prove it.