All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

A. Defendant A is a safety environment manager in charge of the overall control of the above company’s fire-fighting system maintenance and management. Although the person related to a specific fire-fighting object (owner, possessor, manager) was prohibited from doing any act such as closing (including locking) or blocking fire-fighting system when maintaining and managing the fire-fighting system, Defendant A’s repair work for the above B B B Company’s PCB factory around February 27, 2018 (hereinafter “instant fire-fighting system”), the aforementioned B Company’s repair work was carried out in the first floor and second floor, consisting of three areas of this building, three areas of clean fire extinguishing agents, and six areas of clean fire extinguishing agents, which are composed of halog compounds and inflammable substance. Electricly, he is electricly non-powered, volatiles, or fire extinguishing agents installed in important facilities such as electricity, computer system, computer room, etc., which do not keep the remainder of the fire-fighting system from being removed from clean fire-fighting systems (hereinafter “the instant fire-fighting system”).

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd.

A who is an employee at the time and place specified in the subsection (a) with respect to the defendant's work.

A violation, such as the entry in the subsection, was committed.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding or legal principles, Defendant A’s act of making the clean fire extinguishing medicine not automatically divided by putting a safety pindon into the motor engine operation device of the fire-fighting system of this case, it shall be deemed that the act does not meet the elements of the crime for the following reasons, or that the illegality is excluded. However, the court below found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case on a different premise.