beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2013.07.19 2013고정426

위험물안전관리법위반

Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

Defendant

If A does not pay the above fine, 50.

Reasons

Criminal facts

1. Defendant A is the head of the factory B, a company located in P, and one parcel, and is the substantial representative of the company.

No person who has obtained permission to install a hazardous substance manufacturing station, etc. shall use the hazardous substance unless and after receiving a completion inspection from the chief of the competent fire station to use it, and recognized that it conforms to the technical standards under the relevant provisions.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, when establishing a factory B (production, export, etc.) and obtained permission for the installation of an outdoor storage facility for dangerous substances from the Macheon Fire Station on June 21, 2012, used the outdoor storage facility for dangerous substances as of October 2012 at the same time as the completion of the factory and the operation from the beginning of November 2012, 2012, but did not undergo a completion inspection even at the time of detection.

2. Defendant B, at the time and place specified in paragraph (1), committed the above offense against Defendant A, a substantial representative of the Defendant, in relation to the Defendant’s business.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Reporting on detection of violations of the safety control of hazardous substances;

1. Investigation report (on-site confirmation report);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a criminal investigation report;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Article 36 subparagraph 3 of the Safety Control of Dangerous Substances Act and Article 9 (1);

(b) Defendant B: Articles 38(2), 36 subparag. 3, and 9(1) of the Act on the Safety Control of Dangerous Substances

1. Defendant A at a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. 가납명령 피고인들 : 각 형사소송법 제334조 제1항 피고인들의 주장에 대한 판단 피고인들은, 유황은 분진상태일 때 위험물로 분류되고 액체나 일정 형태, 즉 프릴, 그래뉼, 펠렛, 파스틸, 플레이크 등의 형태를 갖추면 위험물이 아닌바, 피고인은 판시 일시, 장소에서 그래뉼 형태 등으로 유황을 보관했으므로 위 법조에 위반하지 않았다고 주장한다.

The Enforcement Decree of the Safety Control of Dangerous Substances, which defines dangerous substances.