logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 홍성지원 2016.10.27 2015고정333
실화
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who leases a building owned by D in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and operates an “E” cafeteria.

At around 13:00 on December 11, 2014, the Defendant, unlike the use of the 6 annual coal in order to enhance the friendliness of the flusium on the ground that the flusium at the time was frozen flusium, entered 9 parts of the flusium in a lump sum and completely open air control tools.

In such cases, there is a risk of fire due to the excessive malfunction of the scams, and even in the case of the outing, there was a duty of care to properly regulate air control tools and properly regulate air control tools.

Nevertheless, the Defendant laid a restaurant in an open state and opened the air control zone, and failed to properly monitor the heating of the above column, caused a studio to put it into the nearby combustible materials of the outlet, such as a string connected to the studio, and caused a 170.04 square meters of the total building.

Accordingly, the defendant destroyed the D-owned building that he uses as a restaurant by making approximately KRW 25,134,471 of the repairing cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. The recording of statements in F and G in the second trial records;

1. Each police statement made to D and H;

1. In case of a return on the results of a fire accident;

1. Fire site photographs [The above evidence duly adopted and examined by this court is examined as follows: the defendant's act of going out by using the 9th annual studio for the first time, unlike normal string, opening the air control apparatus at the string, and thereby, can sufficiently be recognized that the fire in this case occurred due to the negligence of going out, and thus, the defendant and the defense counsel's assertion disputing this cannot be accepted] legal application of law.

1. The corresponding provisions of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts; and

arrow