2017Gohap17A. Fruits explosive objects 1)

(b) Injury by occupational negligence (Bodily injured by occupational negligence).

(c) Violation of the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act;

1. A. B. A.

2. (c) B

Kim Young-young ( Indictment, Public Trial)

Attorney C (for Defendant A)

Law Firm D, Attorney E (Defendant B)

February 1, 2018

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months, by a fine of three thousand won, and by a fine of one hundred won.

Defendant B’s failure to pay the above fine, the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 100,000 into one day;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

However, with respect to Defendant A, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

To order the defendant B to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

1. Defendant A

The defendant is the owner of Gtel in Thai City F, who resides on five floors in the above building.

J. Two copies of liquefied petroleum gas containers kept outside of the first floor for cooking (capacity 20km)

and gas pipeline facilities are installed to supply the gas to each household in the building.

Cc) Furccocks (Intermediate valves) so as to block the supply of liquefied petroleum gas in the middle of gas pipelines.

is set up.

On June 2016, 2016, the Defendant: (a) the Victim H (V 33 years old) who resides in the building No. 404 on the day immediately preceding the date.

No. 404 of the above building on the ground that the defendant does not use the existing gas rail

A window located on the fourth floor of the above building with a gas park located in front of the door, with the victim's load;

was laid down in Gohap.

Liquefied petroleum gas is a substance with a high risk of explosion if leaked, so as above.

Where gas bags connected to a facility are separated or removed, the user of the liquefied petroleum gas facility shall be the user of the facility.

A gas facility construction contractor who has expertise and qualifications shall be separated and removed from gas bags.

In order to ensure that liquefied petroleum gas is not leaked from exposed gas pipelines;

There was a duty of care.

Nevertheless, the Defendant: (a) gas pipelines exposed to gas facility construction contractor’s removal of gas dusts;

on July 18, 2016: the buildings above at around 50, 201, by negligence that does not require the normal finishing measures to be taken;

gas pipes heated by Furcocks due to their insurcocks on the containers connected to heading 404

Through this building, liquefied petroleum gas flows into 404, and the victim is to smoke.

The first step is to see the first step and to explosion.

Ultimately, the Defendant caused damage by burning liquefied petroleum gas, which is an explosive object, by the above negligence.

63% of the physical surface in need of treatment for about three months by a person; 2 degrees and 3

The glass of the JJ vehicle owned by the I while taking a video of the Do and parking in the vicinity of the above building

At least six vehicles, such as shouldering, and at least four of the buildings, have caused damage.

As a result, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim by negligence and at the same time, by negligence.

It has caused danger to human life, body or property by selling objects.

2. Defendant B

Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), which is a liquefied petroleum gas supply company located in K and 102 (LBD) in Thailand.

M) The amount of safety inspection personnel of the 'M', while M Co., Ltd. shall be the amount in Gtel in Thai City F.

The chemical petroleum gas was supplied.

Where a liquefied petroleum gas supplier supplies liquefied petroleum gas to users, his/her facilities

required to conduct a safety inspection.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, an employee of M, is an employee of M on April 15, 2016 with respect to the business of M.

Gtel No. 404 of the Gtel owned by a consumer of liquefied petroleum gas

Within the facility for the use of liquefied petroleum gas, which is installed inside the facility for the use of liquefied petroleum gas, or in Furcocks, etc.

The previous inspection was not conducted.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. A’s legal statement (with respect to Defendant B) of the witness A

1. Some of the interrogation records of Defendant A by the prosecution

1. Some of the interrogation protocol and statement of each police officer against Defendant A

1. Some of the interrogation protocol of the police as to Defendant B

1. Each police statement made to N and H;

1. A report on internal investigation (a stenographic paper attached to dialogueed contents with H);

1. Domestic investigation reports (related to attachment, such as inspection marks of facilities using LPG prepared in M);

1. Report on the current state of gas explosion, medical certificate, internal investigation report (referring to buildings and surrounding damage situations caused by gas explosion, and referring thereto;

- - submitting details of damage -

1. Responses to the results of the investigation into an on-site photo and an explosion accident conducted by the Gas Safety Corporation;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 173-2(1) and 172(1) of the Criminal Act.

In this regard, Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act (the fact of injury caused by negligence)

(b) Defendant B: limited to the Safety Control and Business of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act (hereinafter referred to as the “ Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act”);

C) Article 68 Subparag. 7, Article 30(1), the main sentence of Article 72

1. Competition;

Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Article 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act)

Punishment)

1. Selection of penalty;

As to the crime of selling explosive substances by negligence, the crime of violation of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act

Selection of Fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant B: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Conditions favorable to the Reasons for Sentencing as follows)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant B: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1. As to the defendant A and the defense counsel's assertion

A. Summary of the argument

Defendant A’s Ltel building (hereinafter “instant building”) written in the facts charged to Defendant A

after the lease of No. 404 (hereinafter referred to as "the room of this case"), the victim who is the lessee has leased it.

Treatment of exhaust gas pipes (gas stacks) exposed at the time of removal of gas bags inside the instant room;

shall be responsible for such obligations.

At the time when Defendant A leases the instant room to the victim, gas or gas straw, etc.

A. The victim was in a connected state, and the victim arbitrarily separates gas bags and removes gas bags.

The gas was leaked due to the failure to properly treat the exhaust of the exposed gas source, and thereby the gas was thereby leaked.

It has caused an explosion, such as an explosion described in the facts charged (hereinafter referred to as the "explosion of this case").

B. Determination

1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts and circumstances are examined.

This recognition.

① The instant building is the studio-type building owned by Defendant A, and Defendant A is the sing counter, and Defendant A is the sing counter.

approximately 3.5 square meters of 5 square meters for lease to the lessee of a 16 studio room equipped with air conditioners, gas straws, etc.

(2) the Corporation.

② A victim moved into the instant room around May to June, 2015, and the foregoing room was immediately leased.

The state of official room was about three months after the retirement (Evidence No. 116, 273 pages).

(3) The victim is aware of gas from the time when he/she was in an investigative agency and in this court, to move into the above room.

The method by which gas stuffs are not connected, and they separate gas stacks from gas stacks.

No knowledge was made by the investigative agency (the initial investigation by the investigative agency was made on July 7, 2016, on the date of the explosion of the instant case.

18. The victim was hospitalized in a hospital for middle-patients, and the details and time of investigation of explosion accidents;

In light of the situation of the victim, the above statement is deemed to have high credibility.

④ A lessee No. 405, the immediate adjacent to the room of this case, also a gas farmer at the time of his/her occupancy.

The land is not located at a location and is placed at the below the singularum in a state separate from the gas singularum.

The statement was made that it had been stated.

(5) In light of the No.444, the victim and P’s statements are as follows:

Defendant A’s statement that the gas scrap in the instant room was connected with the gas source was connected with the gas source.

It seems to be different from facts.

(6) A liquefied petroleum gas user shall meet facility standards and technical standards prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Trade

Liquefied Petroleum Gas Use Facilities and Gas Appliances (Article 44 of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act)

Paragraph 1) and for the safety of the user facilities and the normal operation of the user facilities, interim valves, headings

Necessary facilities and equipment, such as facilities and equipment, shall be installed and shall take appropriate measures, and combustion engines (gas bags);

2) In order to prevent accidents, such as fire, explosion, addiction, etc., the safety of facilities using nuclear power and the circumstances

shall be installed so as to operate [Article 69, attached Table 20-1. A. 3) and 5 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act]

Paragraph (1) and subparagraph 10 of attached Table 3]

2) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the instant building and its interior facilities (gas bags, etc.)

Defendant A, the owner of a liquefied petroleum gas, is a user of liquefied petroleum gas, and facility standards and technical standards prescribed by statutes.

Facilities for the use of liquefied petroleum gas and gas appliances to meet them, and to prevent accidents, ensure safety, etc.

necessary facilities and equipment to ensure the normal operation of facilities and to take appropriate measures

(2) In addition, the lessor of the room of this case has a duty to do so, and as the lessor of the room of this case

to the lessee in a state that it can be used safely according to the purpose of use;

In spite of the existence of the foregoing, gas and gas gas bags at the time of delivery to the lessee of the instant room;

(1) A gas ray separate from the gas park without sufficiently verifying whether it is connected or not;

The court may recognize the negligence that has not been properly processed (the defendant A shall have three rooms of this case)

A person who has been in a monthly state shall be fully aware of the existence of the gas scrap separated from the gas source.

the victim, at least, has found that the victim had been granted to the corridor of gas.

In the case of B, it is deemed that the fact was recognized).

On the other hand, after the victim leased and occupied the above room, whether the gas has been inside the room; and

In spite of the responsibility for the management of gas-using facilities, such as gas stacks, whether it is gas

The separation of the gas stuff and the failure to perform the exhaust of separate gas stuffs shall be the direct cause of gas leakage.

Since it is one of the above, the defendant is not entitled to such negligence or the defendant.

The proximate causal relation between the above negligence and the explosion accident of this case cannot be deemed to be denied.

3) Accordingly, Defendant A and the defense counsel do not accept the above assertion.

2. As to the defendant B and the defense counsel's assertion

A. Summary of the argument

1) Defendant B: (a) on April 15, 2016, Defendant B inspected gas facilities safety of the instant building on April 15, 2016; and (b) on each room.

It is true that the internal inspection has not been conducted, but it is inside the room due to the absence of residents at the time.

Gas leakage, etc. can not be entered and all of the measuring instruments installed outside the building;

The inspection was conducted.

2) According to relevant laws and regulations, M as a liquefied petroleum gas supplier is one year for the instant building.

Defendant A, the owner of M and the instant building, must conduct safety inspections at least once, and Defendant A, the owner of M and the instant building, is 2016.

3. 10. Liquefied petroleum gas supply contract (the extension of the period) was concluded, and the date of the above contract was charged.

As long as one year has not elapsed since it was re-dated, Defendant B Article 30(1) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act

shall not be deemed to have violated the Act.

B. Determination

evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court may be found as follows:

In full view of the facts and circumstances, Defendant B, an employee of M,

It is judged that the defendant did not conduct a safety inspection in violation of Article 30(1) of the Swiss Act.

The above assertion by the defendant B and his defense counsel is not accepted.

① Defendant B, on April 15, 2016, conducting a safety inspection of the instant building on April 15, 2016, the case above

In order to visit each room into the inside of the water, there was no difference in the City/Do, and the owner A of the above building

A room for each room, such as opening the door of each room or confirming whether the contact number of occupants can be known;

Defendant B did not request assistance in internal inspection ( Nevertheless, Defendant B did not use “PG facilities.”

Before entering each room, the installation of Furccocks, whether gas appliances, etc. are used, and gas leakage in each room.

as if they were confirmed by the division, etc.

② Defendant A also checks the inside of each room at the time of safety inspection conducted by Defendant B.

was stated to have failed to consider it.

(3) M means of selling liquefied petroleum gas in the instant building (to measure and sell liquefied petroleum gas in volume.

the method, gas supplier shall be supplied with gas from time to time to time to the consumer's storage containers, and used by consumers;

gas shall be supplied by measuring instruments to pay the price.

However, according to Article 42(1)2(a) of the Enforcement Rule of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act, liquefied petroleum gas

A supplier shall provide gas-using facilities at least once a year in the case of supplying them by means of physical sale.

shall conduct a safety inspection.

D M shall supply liquefied petroleum gas to the building from the time of the construction of the building of this case (197) to the above building.

The N, who is an employee of M, was inspected on May 2015 by around the safety of the building at issue (Ndo out of the building)

The Defendant did not check only gas containers and gas pipes and check inside each room)

J. B conducted a safety inspection on April 15, 2016, and between them, a separate safety inspection on the building.

It seems that it did not take place.

5. The extent of Defendant B and M generally per year for the facilities that supply gas.

I stated that safety inspections are conducted.

1. The consumption theory in terms of a contract for the safe supply of liquefied petroleum gas entered into by M and Defendant A on March 10, 2016.

Items 1, M, as prescribed by the laws and regulations, shall be inspected, and

The customer shall not refuse M, and the customer shall not comply with the criteria for the results of the results of the inspection of the BJ or gas leakage.

M includes a statement that it may temporarily suspend gas use for safety purposes.

(70 pages of evidence).

1. No. 30(1) and (4) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act, and Article 2(1)13 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act

A. According to Article 42(1)2 and (4) and attached Table 15-3(a) of the Act, the sale of liquefied petroleum gas is subject to

When a business operator supplies liquefied petroleum gas to users, he/she shall use the gas of the consumers supplied by him/her.

Facilities (facilities for consumption; where liquefied petroleum gas is supplied by means of physical sale, the gas measuring instruments outlet shall be used.

There is a duty to conduct a safety inspection with respect to the burning machine and safety inspection.

Subject gas leakage of each connection part from the gas measuring apparatus to the pipe, hos and burners;

Whether or not a measure is taken or not is included.

8. Meanwhile, a liquefied petroleum gas dealer's facility standards and facilities as a result of safety inspections.

If it is deemed that the facility is not in conformity with the technical standards, the user shall be recommended to improve the facility.

There is a duty to prevent hazards, such as blocking gas supply, if the consumer fails to improve such obligation.

Measures for the purpose of taking measures and report such fact to the head of the Si/Gun/Gu without delay.

(Article 30(2) and (3) of the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Act).

9. In full view of the circumstances such as No. 6 No. 1000, M shall use gas and gas in the room of this case

The meaning of safety inspection shall also be conducted as to whether gas leakage in the part of access to the stamp or not and whether the reduction measures are taken.

the ownership of an occupant or building, if access to the room is required for safety inspection;

shall require cooperation to the person and shall not require the cooperation between the occupants and the building owners;

He seems to have a duty to take measures such as blocking gas supply.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: One month to five years of imprisonment without prison labor; and

(b) The scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria: the sentencing criteria shall not apply.

(c) Determination of sentence;

Defendant A as a lessor or user of liquefied petroleum gas in the room of this case, who is inside the room.

The user shall have installed gas-using facilities, etc. in compliance with the standards prescribed by Acts and subordinate statutes, and the lessee shall do so.

Although a gas facility developer bears the duty to use safely according to the purpose of use, he/she shall be a gas facility developer.

The Plaintiff did not have the Plaintiff properly handle the exposed gas ray. Accordingly, the instant case was thereby subject to the disposition of the Plaintiff.

The explosion accident has occurred, and the degree of damage caused by it is very large.

However, it seems that part of the fire insurance purchased by Defendant A can be recovered from the damage.

The defendant A directly entered the room of this case at the time of the accident to rescue the victim.

After the victim moved into the room of this case, gas and gas protection are separated.

of the Republic of Korea or of the Republic of Korea or of the Republic of Korea or of the United States or of the Republic of Korea.

In spite of gas leakage, the gas did not become aware of the smell (the liquefied petroleum gas is to prevent accidents.)

부취제가 함유되어 있다 ) 실내에서 라이터를 켠 과실이 인정되고 , 위와 같은 피해자의

Negligence also became the cause of the explosion of this case. In addition, after the commencement of lease, in the room.

The primary responsibility to maintain and manage the Furcock in Furcock is to the victim ( lessee).

There is no criminal record exceeding a fine.

In addition, the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime of Defendant A, and the circumstances after the crime

The sentence shall be determined as ordered by taking into account the various factors of sentencing shown in the records.

2. Defendant B

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Fines of 50,000 to 10,000 won;

(b) The scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria: the sentencing criteria shall not apply.

(c) Determination of sentence;

Liquefied Petroleum Gas shall cause an accident due to leakage even if the handling of liquefied petroleum gas is neglected;

Since the leakage of gas is likely to lead to large accidents if explosion as well as easy, it is highly likely to lead to large accidents.

Strict duty of care such as duty of safety inspection to a gas supplier under Article 30 (1) of the Petroleum Gas Act;

Defendant B is in charge of the safety inspection of a gas supply company, and the instant building is in charge of the safety inspection.

In addition, a mistake that neglected the duty of safety inspection on the part of the Company.

However, any criminal charges other than those imposed once on Defendant B for the past 40 years,

Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the offence, including that there is no penalty power;

In full view of the various sentencing factors recorded in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentence is determined as ordered.

Judges Kim Sung-sung

Judge Han-dong

Judge Lee Jin-young

1) The prosecutor stated in the indictment that the name of this part of the crime is "the fact that the crime was committed by negligence explosives", but the prosecutor changes the indictment on December 18, 2017.

The name of the proper crime under the established rules on the name of the crime to be stated in the indictment and non-prosecution (No. 850 of the established rules on the prosecution) at the time of application for permission.

In addition, ‘person' was corrected as ‘heat of explosive and explosive objects'.

2) The prosecutor shall maintain and manage the defendant with the exception of the above negligence in this part of the facts charged, and maintain and manage the Furcock in Furcock in Furcock.

It also stated that there was a negligence not committed by the prosecutor. However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is alone made by the defendant to the victim.

In addition, it is difficult to recognize that there was a furcock at the time of lease of the above 404 building (Korea Gas Safety Corporation)

According to the results of the investigation into the cause of the accident conducted by the company, Furccock was opened on the ground of the date of the accident in this case.

after such tenant has been transferred the possession of the leased object from the lessor, the tenant has been in his possession.

Considering that Furcocks existing in the room are directly responsible for the duty of care to maintain and manage them in a locked state.

In light of the fact that the defendant must maintain and manage Furcocks inside the above 404 in a locked state.

It is difficult to see that the defendant has a duty of care. Accordingly, it is difficult to see that the defendant has not maintained and managed Furcocks as locked.

The facts charged that there is room shall be deleted ex officio.