Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On March 3, 2016, at around 00:04, the Defendant: (a) had to frequently check the situation of the cooking of the electric recognition while manufacturing a fright in the main room of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government “E” operated by D, which was operated by D in the main room of the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, but had to frequently check the situation of the cooking of the electric recognition; (b) had to exhaust the smell on the electric recognition, while making a fright, the Defendant moved the wall, the fright, the ceiling, and the building attached to the said smell by negligence, which did not turn the electric stamp.

As a result, the Defendant destroyed 18,00,000 won or more at the market price of D owned by the public.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal testimony of the witness F;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. A report on the occurrence of a fire;

1. A report on the results of field identification;

1. Application of the statutes of the response request for appraisal;

1. Article 170 (1) and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the cause of the fire of this case is not by the care of the defendant, but by the defect of electric sirens.

2. According to the evidence before the judgment, the following facts and circumstances are revealed.

① The Defendant stated at an investigative agency that “In order to make sprinked with the orders of customers from the main points indicated in the facts charged, he saw food to be sprinked with electricity, and sprinked in the kitchen, and sprinked in the kitchen.” At the time, the Defendant, a person in charge of the direct handling of firearms, was obligated to pay more attention to such matters as when cooking, as the oil was overheated, and the Defendant, a person in charge of the handling of firearms, had no other employees such as the kitchen, etc.

Nevertheless, the defendant has fulfilled his duty of care.