beta
Text
The judgment below
It is due to the violation of the obligation to take necessary measures.
Reasons
1. Scope of the deliberation per party;
A. The lower court convicted the Defendant of all the facts charged in the instant case, and sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 5 million.
Therefore, on the grounds that the defendant misjudgments the facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the prosecutor filed an appeal on the grounds that the sentencing was unfair, and the trial prior to the return was accepted by the defendant's assertion of mistake as to the facts, and the judgment of the court below was reversed
B. A prosecutor filed an appeal against the judgment of the court prior to remand on the ground of violation of the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of the legal principles on the violation of the Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems due to the violation of the duty to take necessary measures. The Supreme Court examined whether the escape stairs and the entrance of the escape facility violated the Acts and subordinate statutes, and whether the defendant demanded necessary measures against the persons related to the violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes. However, the court below acquitted the public prosecutor of this part of the charges solely on the ground that the “entry and exit emergency exit” does not constitute “fire-fighting facilities, etc.” on the ground that the above part of the charges was determined as not guilty. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 20(8) of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act, which affected the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment prior to remand, and remanded the remainder of the charges to the court.
(c)
Therefore, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the violation of the Act on Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems due to the violation of the obligation to take necessary measures.
2. Summary of reasons for appeal;
A. The Defendant’s mistake or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a specific fire-fighting object.