Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a member of C company in Seogu, Seogu, and is a person in charge of adjoining work at the above company.

At around 09:30 on January 13, 2017, the Defendant, at the above company’s plant, had the victim D, who is the owner of the above company, engage in adjoining work to repair the intermediary machines.

Despite the fact that the Defendant had the duty of care to prevent fire from being caused by the above-mentioned operations by taking complementary measures to prevent the flames that occurred in the course of the above-mentioned operations from smelting to the female and spawn in storage in the above factory, the Defendant had the duty of care to prevent the fire from being caused by the above-mentioned operations. However, without any measure, the Defendant was on the part of the central part on which the female and spawn were loaded, and the spawn became once to the first floor (110 square meters) through the wall, ceiling, etc. of the factory with the spawn and spawn in the vicinity.

Ultimately, the Defendant destroyed a factory building equivalent to KRW 246,00,000 in a market price due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A report on property damage and a report on the results of field identification;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (Attachment of fire site photographs);

1. Articles 171, 170 (1), and 166 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and the selection of imprisonment without prison labor;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution does not show a large amount of damage to property due to the instant crime. However, considering the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is divided and the damaged person does not want the Defendant’s punishment; and (b) the damage to property appears to have been recovered to a certain extent from the insurance covered by the victimized person; and (c) the Defendant has no particular criminal record in addition to