2017No2492 A. Injury by occupational negligence

(b) Violation of the Installation, Maintenance and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act;

1.(a) A

2.(a) B

3.(a)(b) C

4.2.D Co., Ltd.

5.2. E Co., Ltd.

Prosecutor

Park Jong-young (prosecutions) and a new crym (public trial)

Law Firm G (for Defendant A, B, and D Company)

Attorney Lee In-bok

Attorney F (for defendant A, B, and D)

Law Firm AU (for Defendant C and E Company)

Attorney AV, AW

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Da3688 decided August 11, 2017

January 15, 2018

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

According to the evidence of this case, Defendant A, B, global level, sirens, emergency broadcasting, and fire-fighting circuit linkage stop devices were continuously operated on a manual continuously. Defendant C, upon receipt of an application for suspension of operation of fire-fighting systems, neglected the duty to guide and supervise the above facts, thereby closing and blocking the fire-fighting facilities, and caused injury to the victims due to such occupational negligence. Defendant D Co., Ltd and Defendant E Co., Ltd, as an employer against Defendant C, could recognize the fact that employees closed and block the fire-fighting facilities. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and acquitted the Defendants.

2. Determination

In a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value, which is sufficient to cause a judge to believe that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the conviction shall be based on the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009).

The court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, found that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants’ closing of fire-fighting facilities was obstructed, and it is difficult for the Defendants A and B to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the act not automatically converted and the occurrence or expansion of victims due to the occurrence or expansion of poisonous inflows after the inspection was conducted (in light of the evidence and records, the court below's judgment is just and it is not acceptable for the prosecutor to recognize a causal relationship between the Defendants' act and the injury occurred or expansion) and the Defendants C cannot be deemed as a negligence on duty as stated in the facts charged, and even if there was a snow physician's negligence, it is difficult to recognize a proximate causal relationship between the injury or expansion of the victims. Examining the grounds for the judgment of innocence in light of the evidence and records, the court below's judgment is justified and it is not acceptable for the prosecutor's judgment to find the facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as otherwise pointed out by the prosecutor.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendants is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (However, according to Article 25 (1) of the Regulation on Criminal Procedure, it is corrected that the defendant's appeal against the defendants is dismissed as stated in paragraph (3) of the judgment below's 6th 4th 3th 2th 6th 6th 6th, 7th 11th 15th 15th 2th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1

Judges Choi Sung-ro

For the remaining judge

Judges Choi Jong-soo