2015Gohap316 A. Occupational failure, etc.

(b) Injury by occupational negligence;

(c) Loss of operations;

(d) Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Driving without Permission);

(e) Violation of the Parking Lot Act;

(f) Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry;

(g) Violation of the Building Act;

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

1. A. (d. A. (61years) and free of office

2.(a)(c)(e)(f)(g)(B)(B)(B)(53)(G), building business;

3.(a)(c) .g. (g) g.C (66) Architects;

4.ma.F.I.D. (F.I.D.) for 59 years, free of duty;

5.ma.g. E (E), architectural business;

6.F (F) and construction business;

7.G(51 year old) and office

8.g. H(61) and Certified Architects

9.g.I (SI) and Certified Architects;

10.g. J(670) and Certified Architects

Public Prosecutor’s stone (prosecutions) and inquiry day (public trial)

Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Go-gu00, 00 (for Defendant B and C),

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant E and G

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

[Defendant-Appellant]

August 30, 2018

[Defendant A, B, and C]

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for a period of one year and six months and by a fine of two hundred thousand won, by imprisonment for a period of four years and six months, and by imprisonment for a period of four years and six months, respectively.

Where a defendant A fails to pay the above fine, the above defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of 10,000 won converted from one day.

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

[Defendant D, I]

Defendant D and I shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

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

To order Defendant D to provide community service for 160 hours.

[Defendant E, F, G, H, and J] Defendant E is punished by a fine of KRW 2 million; Defendant F is punished by a fine of KRW 3 million; Defendant G is punished by a fine of KRW 500,000; Defendant H and J are punished by a fine of KRW 7 million.

Defendant E, F, G, H, and J fail to pay each of the above fines, the said Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

Defendant E, F, G, H, and J shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Criminal facts

【Status of the Defendants and the progress of construction of the apartment of this case

1. Status of the Defendants

Defendant A resides in the apartment of this case at the time of the Government from October 2014, 201; Defendant B constructed and sells the apartment of this case as a personal business owner of 00 housing units located at the Government; Defendant B constructed the apartment of this case; Defendant C is a certified architect operating the office of construction at the fourth floor of the Government, who is in charge of the design and supervision of the apartment of this case; Defendant D is the owner (share 60%) of the L apartment of this case who is in charge of the construction work other than the structural construction of the L apartment of this case; Defendant B has the owner of the building at the time of the Government of the 34% share of the above L apartment; Defendant B is the owner of the building at the time of the construction work at the time of Yangju-si; Defendant C is a certified architect’s representative director in charge of the construction work at the time of the public prosecutor’s approval for use of the apartment of this case; Defendant C is a certified architect’s agent’s agent in charge of the construction work at the time of the Government.

2. Progress in the construction of the apartment in this case

A. The size and construction background 1) of the apartment of this case is about 10 stories above ground, 8 households of multi-family housing constructed with the first floor above ground, and officetels 7-1

As multi-family housing (studio-type) and officetels with a total floor area of 2,537 square meters and 24 square meters, underground floors are installed, such as mechanical rooms and management rooms, electricity distribution lines, communication distribution lines, and water supply pipes, and elevators, and there are apartment houses, ePS rooms, elevators, and elevators with 11 households for each of 2 to 9 floors above ground, and 10 floors above ground are composed of officetels 7, ePS rooms, elevators, rooftops, etc.

2) Defendant B, the owner of the instant apartment, tried to construct the instant apartment at first time with accommodation facilities, such as telecom, etc. However, due to the decrease in demand for accommodation business such as telecom, etc. due to the concentration of sexual traffic business places, etc., Defendant B constructed the instant apartment as an urban-type residential housing that can easily make sales profits, etc. available.

B. Contract and permitted contract of the apartment of this case

On August 201, Defendant B entered into a construction contract with Defendant C, who operates the K Building Office, and entered into a construction supervision contract for the instant apartment building around February 6, 2012, and the said apartment building should be built with the constructor, who is a residential building with a total floor area exceeding 661 square meters. As such, Defendant B entered into a construction contract with Defendant F, the actual representative of M with a comprehensive construction business license.

Defendant B entered into a contract for construction with M to the entire apartment of this case, but only the framework construction to reduce the construction cost shall be carried out in M. In addition, while the other construction is directly carried out by it, the Electric Installations Corporation entered into a subcontract with R. Electrical Construction around December 201, and the Chang Ho Construction Corporation entered into a separate subcontract with Shoho on April 201.

(ii) building permission and amendments;

Defendant B obtained the first building permit for the instant apartment on September 2, 201 with the scale of 78 units of multi-family housing and 5 units of officetels, and obtained the first building permit on February 20, 2012, in order to increase the number of households during the construction process after the commencement of the construction on February 20, 2012, Defendant B obtained the design change permit for multi-family housing 88 units of multi-family housing and officetels 4 units of officetels on March 8, 2012.

11. Obtaining approval for use from the Government viewing;

In the process, Defendant C, as the supervisor of the instant apartment, entered the completion report on the apartment supervision of the instant apartment on September 12, 2012, stating that it is appropriate to all items, and written in the comprehensive opinion column as legitimate, and submitted it to the Council for the use of the instant apartment on behalf of Defendant B, who is the owner of the building.

【Specific criminal facts

1. Defendants B, C, and A’s occupational death, occupational injury, and Defendant A’s occupational injury 4);

A. Defendant A’s negligence 1) The occurrence of duty of care

The Defendant also knew about the structure and form of the instant apartment parking lot parked from around 2005 to April 30, 2006, and from around May 15, 2009 to around May 15, 2009, as an Oratobin specialist who operated Orababan repair shop, and was living in the instant apartment building where the instant fire occurred from around October 2014 to January 10, 2015, and was well aware of the situation at the time, as follows.

① Electric wires connected to the exhaustter inside the key straw, are enclosed with plastic resin with high possibility of combustion. The outer part of the key stuffs also contain approximately plastics, etc., and around the key stuffs, there were air inclosion of rubber materials connected with the fuel tank and the fuel tank lids that are easily inflammable. There were air inclosion of rubber materials that are connected with the main part of the body of the straw straw.

② Also, the said apartment parking lot is composed of plastic materials with low ceiling and 5). There was a concentrated parking of a vehicle at the parking lot, and the Defendant was immediately adjacent to the entrance of the first floor into the building where the instant apartment parking site was parked, and there was a parking of one price from the front side of the said apartment site.

③ The separation distance between the instant apartment and the instant apartment is very narrow between the instant apartment and the instant apartment, such as 182cm, 150cm, and the separation distance between the L apartment and the instant apartment is 170cm, and the separation distance between the instant apartment and the neighboring buildings was 170cm. The instant apartment parking lot was in contact with the instant apartment parking lot and the neighboring general housing building as a structure in which the first floor was disclosed.

Therefore, under the above circumstances as seen above, the Defendant, as a specialist of the Ortoba and a resident of the apartment of this case, was at low temperature and clear weather6 at the time. If the Ortobabababs part is heating the Orababbabs part as a stringter, it may directly erobbbba due to the heat of inflammable substances, or electric wires connected to the kibbbbba, etc. are melting electric wires, etc., and if the Ortobabababs are put on the Orababbab, it may spread the Ortobababba, etc. as a whole, and if a fire occurs on the Ortobababa, it could have been spread into the parking lot, etc., which was parked above the Obababababa, and it could have been sufficiently predicted to spread the part of the parking lot or other buildings with a narrow distance.

Therefore, in the above circumstances, the Defendant had a duty of care to ensure that the Defendant, who is vulnerable to the fire, frightly put the kidice part of the instant Otobbbbbbb in fluen, and if it inevitably puts the kidice part on the kidice part, he had a duty of care to check whether the kidice part was put on the kidice part, and to take necessary measures accordingly, to prevent the expansion of damages, such as a building fire, etc., due to a fire in Obane.

2) Violation of duty of care

Although the Defendant had such duty of care as above, on January 10, 2015: 11: 50 of the above apartment building: The Defendant: 09 days as of the same day as the day he does not extract ice ice from the outside parking lot of the apartment building of this case due to the weather weather: 09: 12: 30 knickers with strong fire power to extract ice 30 knife and put them into a knife: 09 knife with excessive heat: 12 knife with the building of this case: 10 knife from 30 knife with the view that 10 knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif knif knif knif k: 10: 10 kn if.

B. Defendant B and Defendant C’s negligence 1) The apartment of this case is a building with not less than 3 floors above ground and not less than 1,00 square meters of total floor area, and it is necessary to install three or more floors and underground floors on each floor in accordance with the Building Act and the Building Act and the Building Act, and other relevant construction laws and regulations (hereinafter “related construction laws and regulations”). The apartment of this case should be installed with floors, walls, and Class A door with fireproof structure. ① When water supply pipes, power distribution pipes, and other pipes pass through a fire partition, if there is a gap in the fire partition, the difference should be constructed with a structure that recognizes the shock performance, and ② the passage between stairs of each floor and the stairs of each floor is always maintained, or the passage of each floor is postponed or the passage of each building, fireworks, etc. should be postponed rapidly 10).

The apartment of this case was designed to be fire-fighting units pursuant to the above relevant construction laws, such as ① Stockpiling bricks on the wall of the EPS room and installing a door door. ② The apartment of this case was designed to maintain the structure that always shuts down by installing a stringer on the door door installed between the stairs room and the corridor of each floor.

2) Defendant B’s negligence has a duty of care

The Defendant, as the owner and the contractor of the instant apartment, had a construction business license holder under the relevant construction laws and regulations execute the construction of the instant apartment building with a total floor area exceeding 661 square meters, and had a duty of care to prevent or minimize damage by constructing the instant apartment building in compliance with the design drawings and the relevant construction laws and regulations. The fire partition of the instant apartment was also constructed in compliance with the design drawings and the relevant construction laws and regulations, and thus, had a duty of care to prevent or minimize damage when a fire occurs.

B) Violation of duty of care

피고인은 종합건설면허가 없어 이 사건 아파트 신축 공사를 진행할 수 없음에도 공사비 중 60 % 금액으로 M에 골조공사만을 하도록 하고, 나머지 공사를 피고인이 직접 진행하면서 공사현장에 건설기술자를 배치하지 않은 채 아무런 자격이 없는 피고인이 스스로 현장대리인 역할을 수행하면서 시공비용 절감 및 분양 편의를 위하여 ① 창호 공사업자인 S창호 U에게 관련 건축법규 및 설계도면과 달리 3층부터 10층의 계단 및 복도 사이의 방화문에 도어클로저13 ) 를 설치하지 말라고 지시하여 3층부터 10층의 계단 및 복도 사이에 설치된 방화문이 항상 닫히는 구조를 유지할 수 없도록 함으로써 외부에서 발생한 불과 연기가 계단을 타고 쉽게 복도로 들어오도록 하였고14 ), ② 건축시공자로서 EPS실에 설치된 전선 및 통신피트15 ) 의 틈 ( 좌측 : 가로 약 37㎝×세로 약 22㎝, 우측 : 가로 약 23㎝X 세로 약 34cm ), 위 EPS실에 같이 설치된 상수도 파이프의 틈이 발생하였는지를 확인하여 위 틈을 직접 메우거나, 위 틈을 메우도록 지시하는 등 관리 · 감독하여야 함16 ) 에도 위와 같은 조치를 취하지 아니하고 그대로 방치함으로써 불, 연기 및 유독가스가 위 틈을 타고 전 층으로 확산되도록 하였으며 17 ), ③ EPS실의 벽을 벽돌로 쌓고 방화문을 설치하여 방화구획 하도록 한 설계도면과 달리 방화문18 ) 상단에 벽돌 벽체 대신 복도의 채광을 위한 유리창 ( 가로 약 70㎝×세로 약 54㎝ ) 을 설치하도록 한 다음 그 벽에 석고보드로 설치하도록 하여 그 채광창을 통해 불, 연기 및 유독가스가 아파트 복도로 침범하도록 방치하였다19 ) .

3) The occurrence of Defendant C’s fault with the duty of care

The Defendant, as a person in charge of designing and supervising the apartment of this case, had a duty of care to prevent or minimize damage by thoroughly supervising the construction of a fire partition in accordance with the relevant construction laws and design plans as follows.

(1) A project supervisor shall, under his/her own responsibility, confirm whether buildings, building equipment, or structures are constructed in conformity with the design documents, as prescribed by the Act, and instruct the contractor and the project owner to ensure that the buildings and sites conform to the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and shall conform to the suitability of design changes, escape facilities, fireproof structures, fire-fighting structures, fire zones, fire doors, etc.

and guidance and supervision on quality control, construction management, safety management, etc. shall be conducted.

(2) A project supervisor shall inspect whether the construction specifications and quantities by major process or by stage conform to the design documents and shall commence the following process with respect to the confirmed part, shall supervise the installation of electric power distribution lines and distribution cable facilities, and shall supervise the disposal, etc. of the pipes of a fire partition in relation to the installation of electric power distribution lines and distribution cable facilities, and 23). If a gaps occurs between the outer wall and the floor, or if a water supply pipe, power distribution pipe, or other management supervisor passes through a fire partition, he/she shall supervise the said gaps in such structure that resistant shock performance is recognized).

B) Violation of duty of care

The Defendant, as a project supervisor of the apartment of this case, was negligent in checking the fact that B was not properly fire-fighting as follows, but did not properly supervise the apartment of this case.

(1) Where the water supply pipes, power distribution pipes, or other pipes pass through a fire-fighting partition, if any cre in a fire-fighting partition is caused by such cre in connection with the cre in question, the cre in question shall be filled with the structure in which the cre in question is recognized to have the cre in force.

In addition, the EPS room is installed on each floor of the apartment of this case, and the above EPS room passes through the fire partition of each floor, and it is necessary to fill the gap in the structure that recognizes the shock performance, but B did not fill the gap in the construction process.

Thus, as the defendant as the supervisor confirms that the above gap was not recorded in the course of supervision, the supervisor as the plaintiff, should take corrective measures so that the constructor can fill the gap in the structure recognized as shock performance, and should have reported the difference to the competent authority if not corrected, he did not take any measures.

② Since the apartment ES room of this case was designed to be a fire partition, such as piling a brick on the wall on the design drawing and installing a door door, the apartment ES room of this case was installed in the ES room according to the design drawing and installed a fire partition in accordance with the above design drawing, and installed a glass window for sunlighting in the upper part of the ES room at will, unlike the design drawing, in the process of construction, and installed the wall in the ES room as a stone.

As the Defendant discovered that B was unable to properly perform the role of a fire partition as above in the supervision process, the Defendant did not take any measure against B, etc., even though he had ordered B, etc. to perform corrective measures in accordance with the above design drawing, and reported to the competent authority if not corrected.

③ In addition, the apartment building B installed a door between stairs and corridor on each floor, and the door door installed a door, which is a accessory to maintain the structure at all times closed, where the door door was designed to be installed, but is not equipped with a Dorostra, even though it was designed to install a Dorostra.

In the supervision process, the defendant should have confirmed whether the above door is attached with a gacle, etc., and should have taken corrective measures such as requesting the installation of the above gacle, but did not confirm whether the door is installed with a gacle in the supervision process.

④ Although the Defendant, who is the supervisor, did not prepare a false report on the completion of supervision, the Defendant entered the fire partition of the instant apartment in the fire partition column in a false opinion that the fire partition of the instant apartment is adequate.

As above, the Defendant did not properly supervise the error in the construction of the fire partition B.

C. A fire that occurred in the apartment of this case due to Defendant A’s negligence, the course of the outbreak of flames, Defendant A’s negligence, and the fire that occurred in the apartment of this case

Defendant A’s negligence on January 10, 2015: 09: 00 to 09: 00: 13: 01 on the apartment parking lot of the instant apartment between 0: 01 and 09: A 09: A 09: A 09: A 09: A 14: A 36 kis from the outside of the instant apartment parking lot to the kisp and a frying of fire to the kisp on the kisp, to the extent that it can be confirmed as the land, and then a frosping to the kisp, and then a frosping to the fluspher, and then a fluspher to the end of the instant apartment parking lot, and then a 09:24:20-24 of the instant apartment building spread to the entire and surrounding buildings.

2) The running route of flames in the apartment of this case

In the above process: 24: 20 to 09: 10, vehicles parked in front of the entrance of the first floor is destroyed by the heat, and the entrance of the first floor of the reinforced glass material is broken, and fire, smoke or poisonous gas enters the entrance of the first floor stairs, and then the stairs passage was frode, smoke or poisonous gas, and such fire, smoke or poisonous gas was frode onto the second floor through the door door, which was opened between the stairs and the corridor of each floor because it was not installed with a erode, and the other erode between the stairs and the corridor was frode, and the other erode and poisonous gas was drode between the two floors through the ePS door installed on the first floor, and eventually, the air and telecommunication eromatic part was destroyed through a erode and erode of the first floor, and thus, the air and telecommunication eromatic part was not destroyed by the air erode and erode of each floor.

In addition, some slopings are constructed by the dyring method using sti pumps, and the outer walls of the apartment of this case vulnerable to fire were on the 4th floor up to the 4th floor, causing chemical and toxic gas) damage to human life due to fire in the apartment of this case 25)

위와 같이 불이 나자 2015. 1. 10. 09 : 23 : 21경 소방벨이 울리게 되었고, 이 사건 아파트 801호 거주자인 피해자 V ( 여, 32세 ) 등은 같은 날 09 : 30경 아파트 계단을 통해 1층까지 뛰어 내려갔다가 1층 계단을 통해 올라온 불, 연기 및 유독가스로 인해 1층으로 탈출이 불가능하게 되자 다시 2층으로 올라와 2층 복도로 대피하였으나 도어클로저가 없어 2층 계단과 복도 사이에 열려 있던 방화문 및 2층 EPS실을 통해 2층 복도로 들어온 불, 연기 및 유독가스로 인해 심한 화상과 함께 호흡이 곤란하자 반대편 복도로 기어서 대피하다가 2층 복도 베란다에 이르렀다가 베란다에서 지상으로 뛰어내려26 ) 치료일수 미상의 늑골골절상 및 일산화탄소 중독 등의 상해를 입게 되었고, 이 사건 아파트 605호 거주자인 피해자 W ( 여, 26세 ) 도 605호에서 계단을 통해 아래로 내려가다가 계단을 통해 올라온 불, 연기 및 유독가스에 쫓겨 다시 7층 복도로 대피하였으나 도어클로저가 없어 7층 계단과 복도 사이에 열려 있던 방화문 및 7층 EPS실을 통해 들어온 불, 연기 및 유독가스 등으로 인해 대피로를 찾지 못하여 우왕좌왕 하던 중 옥상으로 가려고 다시 계단으로 접근하다가 같은 날 09 : 25경부터 10 : 24경 사이에 4층 계단실에서 유독가스 등을 과다 흡입하여 현장에서 질식사하였으며 27 ), 이 사건 아파트 410호 거주자인 피해자 X ( 여, 22세 ) 도 같은 날 09 : 30경 4층에서 계단을 통해 대피하려다가 도어클로저가 없어 4층 계단과 복도 사이에 열려 있던 방화문 및 4층 EPS실을 통해 들어온 불, 연기 및 유독가스로 인한 화상과 함께 호흡이 곤란하여 더 내려가지 못하고 다시 410호로 돌아와 문을 닫고 방에서 구조를 기다리던 중 같은 날 09 : 45경 구조되어 한림대학교 한강성심병원에서 치료를 받다가 같은 달 23. 23 : 25경 위 병원에서 화상으로 인한 패혈증으로 사망하고, 이 사건 아파트 906호 거주자인 피해자 Y ( 여 , 67세 ) 도 계단을 통하여 옥상으로 대피하려다가 위와 같이 계단 및 EPS실을 통해 들어 온 불, 연기 및 유독가스 등을 과다 흡입하여 같은 날 09 : 25경부터 10 : 52경 사이에 10층 계단에서 질식사하였으며 28 ), 이 사건 아파트 702호 거주자 피해자 Z ( 여, 28세 ) 도 위 화재 이후 계단을 통해 대피하다가 위와 같이 계단 및 EPS실로 들어온 불과 연기 및 유독가스로 인해 대피할 곳을 찾지 못한 채 지하 1층 계단에 쓰러져 있다가 10 : 20경에서 10 : 40경 사이에 구조되어 강남베스티안 병원에서 치료를 받던 중 같은 날 14 : 45경 위 병원에서 다발성 장기부전으로 사망하고29 ), 이 사건 아파트 503호 거주자인 피해자 a ( 42세 ) 도 5층 복도에서, 도어클로저가 없어 5층 계단과 복도 사이에 열려 있던 방화문 및 5층 EPS실을 통해 들어온 불과 연기에 고립되어 피난하지 못하고 유독가스만 흡입한 채 방으로 돌아가 구조를 기다리던 중 위 503호 현관문 틈으로 들어온 유독가스로 인해 같은 날 09 : 51경부터 12 : 52경 사이 현장에서 질식사하고 30 ), 31 ) 이 사건 아파트 810호 거주자인 피해자 b ( 39세 ) 는 역시 소방벨 소리를 듣고 같은 날 09 : 30경 계단을 통해 피난하다가 계단 및 EPS실로 들어온 유독가스를 흡입한 채 옥상 문을 찾지 못하고, 옥상 바로 위에 있던 기계실까지 올라가 위 기계실의 창문을 통해 이 사건 아파트 옥상으로 뛰어내리던 중 넘어져 약 8주간의 치료를 요하는 발목골절 등의 상해를 입었고, 피해자 c ( 29세 ) 32 ) 등 일부 피해자들은 계단을 통해 피난하거나 기계실에서 대기하던 중 유독가스를 흡입하여 일산화탄소 중독 등의 상해를 입었다 . 4 ) L아파트 등 인근 건물에서의 화염의 진행 경로 및 화재피해 이 사건 아파트 주차장에서 차량 등이 소훼되면서 확산된 화염이 이 사건 아파트 바로 옆에 있는 L아파트에 주차된 차량으로 옮겨 붙어 위 차량이 소훼되면서 그 화염이 주변 차량 및 천장 등에 옮겨 붙은 다음 L아파트의 주차장 출입문을 통해 건물 내부로 유입되어 건물 계단 2층까지 벽체 등이 그을려 L아파트 201호 거주자인 피해자d 등으로 하여금 치료일수 미상의 호흡곤란 등의 상해를 입게 하였다 .

In addition, the flames generated from the above L apartment parking lot were moved to the parking tash, which is located in the sandd position panel wall of the N apartment owned by the victim G, and the fire was spread to the 15th floor of the N apartment rooftop, according to the above parking tash, and the fire was destroyed to the upper floor room, which is owned by the victim D, victim E, and victim's new name, etc. adjacent to the above parking tash, and the fire was destroyed to the 3 to 10th floor.

In addition, the outer wall of Tudio, a victim e-owned building located near the e-owned building due to fire caused by N apartment and L apartment parking lot, was partially destroyed, and as the fire was spread from the apartment parking lot of this case to the roof of neighboring house, it was destroyed by the fire that 58 vehicles, such as the general house 3 bonds owned by the victim 6, and the M3 car owned by the victim g, etc., and the 5 vehicles, such as SM3 car, which are the ownership of the victim f, and

5) The Defendants’ above negligence by occupational negligence and death caused the death of 5 victims W, etc. as shown in the annexed Table 1, as well as the annexed Table 2, 1, 21, 21, 31, 50, 54, 59, 69, 70) of the annexed Table 2, 1, 28 residents of the apartment of this case caused the death of 5 victims, such as the victim W, etc., as shown in the annexed Table 1.

In addition, Defendant A had 34 persons in total, such as Nos. 2, 78, 120, 96, 100, 102, 108, 109, 114, 116, and 120, among them), due to the above negligence as set forth in the attached Table Nos. 2, 78, 120, and 120.

B) Defendant A, by the foregoing negligence, destroyed the property, such as household appliances owned by 75 residents of the apartment of this case, as shown in Nos. 3-1 through 75 of the attached list of crimes committed against the foregoing negligence. Defendant A, as well as the fire of SM3 passenger cars in the market price owned by the victimg, destroyed the total of 127 victims’ buildings, household appliances, and the attached list No. 76-202, as shown in the attached list 3-7 victims’ buildings, household appliances, and the attached list No. 4, destroyed the total of 63 victims’ car cars, and 5 Ortoba, as shown in the attached list 4.

2. Violation of the Building Act by the defendant B and F

Defendant B, at around March 8, 2012, obtained a building permit to build officetels 4 on the 10th floor of the instant apartment building from March 9, 2012 to October 11, 2012, Defendant B, without obtaining permission from the competent authorities, installed a boundary wall, etc. on the 10th floor of the instant apartment building, installed a 10th floor of the instant apartment building on the 10th floor, installed an additional 3th unit more than the permission obtained. Defendant F, the owner of the building, was well aware of the matters for which Defendant B, the owner of the building, was well aware, and installed a boundary wall in addition to 3 units to 7 officetels in the process of construction of the aggregate, and installed a boundary wall.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to modify the permitted matters without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

3. Defendant D, and E, who violated the Building Act by Defendant D, E, and E were entitled to share h (6% of shares) and 5 officetels from the Government viewing on November 17, 2011 to the 10th floor of the above L apartment. However, from February 7, 2012 to September 28, 2012, Defendant F, who installed the aggregate of the above L apartment without obtaining permission from the competent authority, installed a boundary wall in the above L apartment 10-story officetel, and constructed the above L apartment 10-story 7 additional 2 of the above L apartment 10-story 2 of the permission. Defendant F, the owner of the building, knew that it was well known that Defendant D, etc., the owner of the building, obtained permission, had an entry wall installed in addition to 2, rather than 3, an officetel installed in the construction process in accordance with the order of the above Defendant D construction.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with H and changed the permitted matters without obtaining permission from the competent authorities.

4. Violation of the Parking Lot Act by the defendant D or E;

On September 28, 2012, the Defendants constructed the urban-type residential housing of 88 households of apartment houses, 13 units attached parking lots for apartment houses, 7 units attached parking lots for 88 households of apartment houses, and 17 units attached parking lots for attached parking lots for 7 units attached to the 7th office of office office of business facilities.

The Defendants conspired to establish an attached parking lot in violation of the standards for the establishment of the attached parking lot.

5. Violation of the Road Traffic Act by Defendant A (Driving without Permission)

On January 10, 2015: (a) around 50, the Defendant driven a 4.5 km section before the Defendant’s house located in the Gu Government, from January 10, 2015 to the apartment parking lot of this case at the same time, without obtaining a motorcycle license. (b) At around 50, the Defendant driven a 00-wheeled 4 obane without obtaining a motorcycle license.

6. Violation of the Parking Lot Act and the Framework Act on the Construction Industry by Defendant B;

(a) Violation of the Parking Lot Act;

On October 11, 2012, the Defendant constructed an urban-type residential house of 88 households and officetels 7 units in the apartment of this case, and therefore, it is necessary to establish a 13 attached parking lots for the 88 households of apartment houses and 7 attached parking lots for the 7th attached parking lots for the 7th households of business facilities and 17 attached parking lots for the 88 households of apartment houses.

Accordingly, the defendant set up an annexed parking lot in violation of the standards for establishing annexed parking lots.

(b) Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry;

From early July 2012 to October 1, 2012, the Defendant, without registering the construction business in the apartment of this case, performed the construction work of the said apartment of this case, which is a construction work of the said apartment of this case, and the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works. 34).

As a result, the Defendant did construction business without registration of construction business, and constructed a residential building with a total floor area exceeding 661m2 even though it is not a constructor.

7. Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry of Defendant D, and violation of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act;

A. Violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry;

From the beginning of July 2012 to the lower police officer on September 2012, 2012, the Defendant performed fire-fighting construction works, which are construction works of the above L apartment and have a total floor area exceeding 661 square meters, without registering construction business from the above L apartment.

As a result, the Defendant did construction business without registration of construction business, and constructed a residential building with a total floor area exceeding 661m2 even though it is not a constructor.

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

From January 14, 2013 to February 6, 2014, the Defendant performed an inspection of the function of fire-fighting systems, such as fire-fighting equipment, alarm equipment, escape equipment, and fire-fighting water equipment installed in the above apartment, which is a specific object of fire-fighting, at least once a year, while serving as the manager of the fire-fighting base of L apartment from January 14, 2013, and did not check the equipment necessary for the fire-fighting systems concerned, such as waterproof pressure measurement meters, smoke resistance resistance meters, electric current voltage measurement meters, and heat pressure test equipment.

Accordingly, the defendant did not conduct self-inspection of fire-fighting systems, etc.

8. Defendant C’s violation of the Building Act

On September 2012, the Defendant had access to the computer system of construction administrative affairs provided by the civil petitioners to view administrative affairs without visiting the government offices by computerizationing the ice construction, housing, building ledgers, business operators, etc. at the above i building office, and had access to the computer system of construction administrative affairs provided by the civil petitioners without visiting the government offices. Although electric wires and communication lines are not properly installed, electric wires and telecommunications lines are not installed with a structure that recognizes the shock function of the fire zone due to the fire partition, and the fire zone is not properly installed, among the escape items of the report on completion of supervision, the Defendant prepared and submitted the report on completion of supervision stating the “reasonable supervision” in the column of the fire partition among the escape items of the report on completion of supervision.

Accordingly, the defendant prepared and submitted a false report on completion of supervision without justifiable grounds.

9. Violation of the Building Act by the defendant H

On September 20, 2012, the Defendant had access to a scooter at the above construction office, and the fact is not installed in the doors of the above L apartment, and the fire partition is not properly installed, such as electric and telecommunication distribution lines and water supply pipes through a fire partition, and the gap caused by the fire partition is not properly installed. However, the Defendant prepared and submitted a suitable supervision completion report on the fire partition column of the supervision completion report.

Accordingly, the defendant prepared and submitted a false report on completion of supervision without justifiable grounds.

10. Violation of the Building Act by Defendant J

On September 27, 2012, the Defendant did not have a stringer on the door door of the above L apartment, and did not have a stringer on the door of the electricity and telecommunications line, water supply pipe through a fire partition, and did not have a fire partition properly installed on the structure that recognizes the shock performance while passing through a fire partition. However, the Defendant prepared and submitted a report on the investigation and inspection of the approval for use and “an appropriate investigation and inspection report on the approval for use” in the fire partition column of “the approval for use and inspection report on the use of the escape facilities.”

Accordingly, the defendant prepared and submitted a false report on the investigation and inspection for use without justifiable grounds.

11. Violation of the Building Act by the defendant;

On October 8, 2012, the Defendant did not have a stringer on the door of the apartment building of this case, and the fire zone is not properly installed, such as electricity and communication distribution lines and water supply pipes are not equipped with a structure that recognizes the shock performance while passing through a fire partition. However, the Defendant prepared and submitted a report on the investigation and inspection of the use approval of the apartment of this case on the fire partition column among the escape facilities in the investigation and inspection report.

Accordingly, the defendant prepared and submitted a false report on the investigation and inspection for use without justifiable grounds.

12. Violation of the Building Act by Defendant G

On May 14, 2013, the Defendant constructed a building (21.84 square meters in size) using the sand site board using the sand site board as the purpose of storage and office for the above N apartment rooftop on June 2013, when the Defendant obtained approval for use as an urban-type residential house under subparagraph 10 of the ground floor, 15 stories above ground, apartment houses (studio-type) 60 households, and business facilities (studio-type 10 households).

The defendant was built without reporting to the competent authority without permission.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing occupational death and injury by occupational negligence), 171, 170(1) and (2), 164(1), and 166(1) (the point of occupational negligence) of the Criminal Act, Article 154 Subparag. 2, and Article 43 of the Road Traffic Act (the point of point of licenseless driving by Oralba)

B. Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of violation of the restriction on construction work by occupational negligence and occupational injury), Articles 29(1)1, 19(1) and (3) of the Parking Lot Act (the point of violation of the duty to establish an annexed parking lot), Article 96 Subparag. 1, 96 of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry (amended by Act No. 14708, Mar. 21, 2017; hereinafter “former Framework Act on the Construction Industry”), Articles 9(1)5, 96 subparag. 5, and 41(1)1 (the point of violation of the restriction on construction work by occupational negligence and occupational injury), the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 1246, Jan. 14, 2014; hereinafter “former Building Act”)

C. Defendant C.

Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of occupational death and bodily injury caused by occupational negligence), Articles 110 subparag. 6 and 25(5) of the former Building Act (the preparation and submission of a false supervision report)

[A prosecutor is indicted by stating Article 110 subparagraph 5 of the former Building Act as the applicable provisions of the Act, but this seems to be a clerical error in Article 110 subparagraph 6 of the former Building Act]

D. Defendant D.

Articles 29(1)1, 19(1) and (3) of the Parking Lot Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a violation of the duty to install an attached parking lot), Article 110 subparag. 2, and 16(1) of the former Building Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a violation of the duty to change without permission), Article 96 subparag. 1, Article 96(1)(a) of the former Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 96 subparag. 5, and Article 41(1)1(a) of the former Act, Article 49 subparag. 4, and Article 25(1)(a) of the former Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (amended by Act No. 13062, Jan. 20, 2015)

E. Articles 29(1)1, 19(1) and (3) of the Parking Lot Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a violation of the duty to install an annexed parking lot), Articles 110 subparag. 2 and 16(1) of the former Building Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a modification of an unauthorized design)

F. Article 110 Subparag. 2 and Article 16(1) of the former Building Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (U.S.’s modification of designs without Permission)

G. Defendant G.

Articles 11 subparag. 1 and 14(1)1 of the former Building Act (the extension of a report)

H. Article 110 Subparag. 6 and Article 25(5) of the H-gu Building Act (Preparation and Submission of False Supervision Report)

[Public prosecutor's indictments by stating Article 110 subparagraph 5 of the former Building Act as applicable provisions of the Act, but this also seems to be a clerical error in Article 110 subparagraph 6 of the former Building Act]

(i) Articles 109 and 27(2) of the former Building Act (amended by Act No. 10954, Feb. 2, 201)

(j) Articles 109 and 27(2) of the J-gu Building Act

1. Commercial competition;

A. Defendant A

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment specified in Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act on the crime of death by occupational negligence, the crime of causing by occupational negligence, the crimes of causing by occupational negligence, the crimes of causing by occupational negligence, the crimes between the crimes of causing by occupational negligence, the crimes and the

B. Defendant B

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments under Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for the crimes of death by occupational negligence, between the crimes of death by occupational negligence, between the crimes of bodily injury by occupational negligence, and between the crimes and the severe crimes)

C. Defendant C.

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments under Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for the crimes of death by occupational negligence, between the crimes of death by occupational negligence, between the crimes of bodily injury by occupational negligence, and between the crimes and the severe crimes)

1. Selection of punishment;

A. The punishment of imprisonment without prison labor and the fine for the violation of the Road Traffic Act for the crimes of death by occupational negligence of Defendant A

B. As to Defendant B’s crime of death by occupational negligence, imprisonment with prison labor and imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Parking Lot Act and the violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of death by occupational negligence, each choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of death by occupational negligence and violation of the Building Act

D. Defendant D’s choice of imprisonment

E. Selection of Defendant E fine

F. Selection of Defendant Frith fine

G. Selection of Defendant H fine type

H. Defendant I Imprisonment

I. Defendant J’s selection of fine

1. Punishment for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: the former part of Article 37 and Article 38(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant B

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and (2) and Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment for Crimes of Death by Occupational Negligence, which is the most serious punishment)

B. Defendant C.

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2 and 38 (2) and 50 of the Criminal Act [limited to the concurrent punishment for a crime of occupational injury and death with heavier punishment, and punishment by imprisonment with prison labor (limited to the sum of the long-term punishment for the above two crimes)];

C. Defendant D

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment for Punishment of Crimes)

D. Defendant E

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act / [Article 37 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act / [the maximum amount of the crimes above shall be added to the maximum amount of the crimes]

E. Defendant F

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [Article 38 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act / [Concurrent Crimes as provided for in the Building Act / Punishment of Concurrent Crimes)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant E, F, G, H, and J: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

1. Suspension of execution (The conditions favorable to the following reasons for sentencing): Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Probation and community service order;

Defendant D: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant E, F, G, H, and J: Determination on the assertion of Defendant B, C, and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of defendant B, C, and Defense Counsel's assertion

A. Defendant B1) Occupational negligence, resulting in death or injury by occupational negligence

① There was no fact that the Defendant instructed the Changho Construction Business Operator U to not install the Docleer on the door between stairs and corridor. U submitted a construction statement that does not install the Docleer and did not install the Docleer on his own. The Defendant was unaware of whether to install the Docleer.

(2) The defendant is not a contractor or supervisor, and the defendant is not responsible for managing and supervising electrical construction or installation works related to the gaps of electric wires and telecommunications sets.

B) A causal relationship

There is no scientific basis for the time required for the spread of fire in the EPS room, and even if there is a door installed in the stairs room, the victims cannot be deemed to have suffered injury or have died due to flames or smokes introduced through the above EPS room, or through fire doors that were postponed or opened.

Rather, as the flow of air caused by pressure vehicles due to the difference in the weight of external air columns in the building, the victims who evacuated to the stairs room rapidly due to the postponement that has been rapidly introduced into the stairs room by the stairs, etc., should be deemed to have suffered damage. In addition, the fire caused by the downfall due to the stop of the fire helicopter, which led to the spread of the fire, and the victims suffered damage, such as death or death.

2) If M directly executes more than 20/100 of the total construction work pursuant to Article 30-2 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry in violation of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, it is permitted to subcontract the remainder. Therefore, even if the Defendant, who is the owner of the construction, has given a contract for some specialized construction works to a specialized construction business entity by mutual consent with M, it does not constitute a violation of the Framework Act

B. Defendant C.

1) It cannot be interpreted that the Defendant neglected the supervision duty by negligence on the occurrence or expansion of a fire.

2) Since the Defendant violated the Building Act failed to discover the gap or installation, etc. of electric wires and telecommunications sets by negligence, it does not intentionally prepare a report on the completion of supervision, and thus does not constitute a crime of violating the Building Act.

2. Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. The first floor of the apartment of this case is located in the outside and open parking lot, the entrance door inside the building, the elevator, the stairs room, and the EPS room, etc., and the entrance door, which is a reinforcement glass between the parking lot and the entrance, is installed at the entrance of the entrance room in the entrance.

2) At the entrance of the parking lot, the 1st floor EPS room is located on the inner wall of the building, and each EPS room is located on the same location as that of the 2nd to 10th floor, at the entrance of the apartment parking lot of this case. 3) In the case of the 2nd floor and 9th floor, the left side of the apartment of this case is 6 units, and the 7th floor, 8, 9, 10, and 11 in the direction of the EPS room is located in the order of 5 units, and the right side of the apartment of this case is 4 units, 3 units, 2 units, 1 units, and 1 in the direction of the EPS room is located in the order of the right side and the right side of the apartment of this case.

4) In the case of the 10th floor, the left side of the apartment of this case is three rooms, and 3-1 rooms and 4 rooms are located in the direction of the EPS room. The right side of the apartment of this case is 2-1 rooms, 2-1 rooms, 1 rooms, and stairs rooms are located in the direction of the PES room, and the corridor is located in the order of 2-1 rooms, and between the right side and the left side side of the parking lot of the 10th floor. 5) On the basis of the entrance of the parking lot of the 10th floor of the apartment of this case, the general house is located in the right side of the apartment of this case, in the order of L apartment and N.

B. Circumstances at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire

1) The instant apartment parking lot of the first floor was all burned, and the EPS room was all burned from the first floor to the tenth floor.

B) In the case of the instant apartment building 2 to 10th floor, half of the ceiling part in the direction of the corridor was burned from the EPS room, and the 10th floor corridor was burned of the ceiling part, and the outer wall of the instant apartment building was burned up to 3rd floor, and all of the 10th floor were burned of the outer wall of the instant apartment building.

D) On January 10, 2015, in the case of the instant apartment stairs, the combustion, such as concrete transformation, etc., occurs from the first floor to the fourth floor, and the upper floor was cut down. 2) On January 10, 2015, the situation at the time the CCTV installed in the instant apartment building was confirmed by the CCTV installed in the instant apartment building: 09: 14:50 (hereinafter referred to as the "days") to the stoba of A, and the stoba is gradually spreading.

B) 09: 23: From 20 to 20, fire fighting belts began to work.

C) 09: 24: Around 00, the first floor parking lot is felabro by smoke, and 09: 24: CCTV installed on the first floor at around 20: 20: (a) stopped operation.

D) 09: 25: CCTV installed on the 7th, 8th, and 9th, 10th and upper floors, and CCTV installed on the 1st and upper floors, thereby blocking the operation of both.

E) 09: 26: around 05, some of the residents living on the second floor have acted in order to prevent co-operation, and any of them opened the door of the second floor EPS room. From around 26: 26: from around 13 to 26: 13, the dust smoke has entered the second floor of the second floor, and around 09: 26: 15, the operation of the second floor CCTV has ceased.

F) From the time of the occurrence of a fire, the door installed at the entrance of the first floor stairs from the time of the fire to the time when the outside CCTV operation in the building stops all, is in a state of continuous opening. 3) At around 09:31, around 16 minutes after the first time of the fire-fighting vehicle, the fire door was confirmed to have been inspected as above the apartment of this case. At around 09:33, the fire-fighting vehicle arrived at the surrounding apartment of this case. At the time, the first floor of this case was parked in the parking lot, and the inspection was covered by the first floor and its upper floor, and the first floor parking lot and the vehicle parked adjacent to the fire-fighting vehicle were expanded.

B) around 09: around 43: Around 43, the apartment of this case 2, the residential space of the 3rd floor is burned and the apartment of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of 2, the apartment of this case’s residential corridor was burned to the outside of the building through the outdoor engine room. The right outer wall of this case’s apartment of this case’s apartment of this case

C) At around 09: 50, it is not visible from the first floor parking lot of the apartment of this case, and it is going up only from the first floor parking lot and the right outer wall of the apartment of this case.

D) 10: A structure and fire fighting helicopter appears in around 20: 10: around 22:2, the extension of the inside of the building was out of the window of the outdoor engine room from around 5 to 10:0. around 24: A fire fighting helicopter makes a stop flight to save lives in the apartment space of this case; by the downside wind, from around 7 to 10:0, the apartment space of this case, the out of the building was scattered by the window from around 10:0 to over 10:0, the fire fighting helicopter deviates from the apartment space of this case, and does not appear from around 37:0.

E) 10: around 40: Around 10, the internal inspection of the apartment of this case through the window of the 10th floor of the apartment of this case has been strongly emitted compared to the relocation, and the smoke of Myanmar in the inside of the building from the 7th to 10th floor has been continuously discharged through the window.

F) 10: (a) by a stop flight of rescue and fire fighting helicopter called out from 46 to 46, the postponement discharged from the upper floor of the instant apartment is spreading in the direction below the lower direction; (b) a large number of postponements emitted from around 10:53 to the upper floor.

G) 11: From 44 to 44, there were almost no smokes in the inside of the apartment of this case, and around 12: fire was almost extinguishing around 12.

C. Relevant statutes

As shown in the attached Form.

3. Judgment on Defendant B’s occupational injury and injury by occupational negligence

(a) Status of a contractor under the former Building Act;

Pursuant to Article 24(1) of the former Building Act, a contractor is obligated to construct a building in compliance with an order or disposition under the Building Act and the Building Act, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Here, the contractor refers to a person performing construction works (referring to construction works for installing, maintaining, and repairing facilities, such as civil engineering works, building works, industrial facility works, landscaping works, environmental facility works, etc., and installation and dismantling works for machinery and equipment and other structures) pursuant to Article 2(1) of the former Building Act. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was in the position of the contractor from the beginning of July 2012, when the structural frame of the instant apartment is completed.

① The Defendant was aware of F operating M and from 25 to 30 years, and the Defendant first started construction business. The instant apartment was built by F by presenting a design drawing to F and proposing whether the Defendant could build a building.

② At an investigative agency and this court, M is merely an electrical construction and facility pipeline construction (which shall be accompanied by a structural construction) that shall be carried out together with a structural construction and a structural construction, and the Defendant stated consistently that all the works that are carried out after the structural construction will be completed by himself/herself, and that the rest of the works will be completed by the Defendant.

The k or M’s employee in charge of accounting affairs in M made a statement to the above purport at an investigative agency or this court. The defendant also constitutes 60% of the total progress rate, and 40% of the remainder of the 40% of the total progress rate, excluding this, the defendant selected the subcontractor and completed the construction of the apartment of this case by employing the body, or is required for expertise. However, the Mahn Construction et al. made a statement to the above purport, which corresponds to the F’s statement because it is not necessary to be specialized.

③ On February 2012, the Defendant introduced Do to operate the said construction industry through N, where he/she had employed the construction industry, entered into a contract with Do to construct fire-fighting equipment construction works on the apartment of this case from June 2012 to September 2012. The Defendant entered into a contract with U operating Sho Lake, and U entered into a contract to build the apartment of this case from April 2012 to October 2012. Furthermore, the Defendant did not directly purchase materials, such as wood, glass, dye, cement, etc., to be directly in charge of construction, or directly install a fire door at the construction site to ensure that the Defendant did not directly reside in and supervise the construction site, as if he/she did not direct the construction site, and then installed a list of related companies at the construction site without any direction or supervision from the construction site to the construction site. Furthermore, the remainder of the construction works did not appear to have been installed at the construction site to have been installed at the construction site.

① Pursuant to Article 49(2) of the former Building Act, Article 46(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, and Article 14(1)2 and 14(2)1 of the former Rules on Standards for Evacuation, Fire-Fighting Structure, etc. of the Building, the apartment of this case shall be installed on each floor from 3 to 10 floors, and the class A fire doors used as a fire partition shall be built of a structure that can automatically close by maintaining the closed state at all times, or immediately reducing the smoke, temperature, fireworks, etc. caused by fire.

(2) Pursuant to Articles 23, 23 (1) and (2) and 15 (1) of the former Building Act, an architect shall design the apartment building in this case, and a designer shall design the apartment building in compliance with the former Building Act, an order or disposition issued or made under the former Building Act, and other relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and shall prepare design documents in accordance with the standards for preparation of design documents determined and publicly notified by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs. In addition, a construction participant, such as a contractor, etc., shall faithfully perform his/her duties so that the apartment building in this case

B) A breach of the duty of care (1) is a violation of the duty to maintain the door from 3 to 10 floors of the instant apartment building in close condition or to close the door with a fire, etc. (A) first, according to the following circumstances, the Defendant ordered the U.S., who entered into a contract for the construction of the instant apartment building with himself, to stop the door between the stairs room used as a fire partition of the instant apartment building and the corridor on each floor. Therefore, the Defendant violated the duty to maintain the door door used as a fire partition from 3 to 10 floors of the instant apartment building at all times, or to automatically close the door door that is used as a fire partition from 10 floors of the instant apartment building by immediately reducing the smoke, temperature, flame, etc. caused by fire.

1 ① The Defendant had U, South Korea, who directly traded with himself for 18 years perform the construction work of the apartment of this case.

② At the police station, U explained that the Defendant should be given instructions on construction, and that the Defendant and D should be set up a clicker. However, he stated that “I did not set up any clicker” even if I were to set up the clicker, and the prosecution also stated that “I would have made the Defendant known that I would have not set up the clicker,” and that “I would have not set up the clicker,” and that “I would have made the Defendant’s statement at the investigative agency when I had experienced the above fact.” The statement at the investigative agency is acknowledged to have credibility to be made a statement at the time when I had experienced the above fact.

U stated in this court that he asked D and buyers who are not the defendant to build a Docer, and made a statement contrary to the above investigation agency’s statement. U’s legal statement is an appearance before and after the defendant was prosecuted. It is difficult to understand that the relation with the defendant or the discussion on the installation of the Docerererererer in the apartment of this case is not the defendant, and it is difficult to believe it as it is in light of time interval from the time of experience. (b) In addition, even if the defendant did not direct U to not install the Docererer, the defendant, as seen above, concluded a construction contract directly with U as a contractor, and the defendant did not have an automatic Docerer installed in front of the 3 to 10th floor of the apartment of this case constructed by U, as long as it is acknowledged that the defendant did not have an automatic Docerer installed in front of the Docererer, etc. in accordance with the first floor of fire and fire prevention under Article 49(2) of the former Building Act.

(2) According to the design drawing, the window gate prepared by a certified architect C, in violation of the duty to install an air-tank on the door from the 1st to 10th floor of the apartment of this case, is indicated as a type A door installed between the corridor and the 10th floor, including the 1st floor and the 2nd floor of the apartment of this case. However, it is recognized that the defendant ordered U who asked U.S. that the defendant should install an air-tank should not install an air-tank, and it is reasonable to deem that the defendant violated the duty to install an air-tank on the front door of the stairs room from the 1st to the 10th floor of this case in accordance with the above design drawing.

3) Contents of the duty of due care as to whether the EPS room breached its duty of care not to fill the gap of electric wires, telecommunication ties, and water supply pipes

Pursuant to Article 49(2) of the former Building Act, Article 46(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, Article 14(1)2 and Article 14(2)2 of the former Rules on Standards for Evacuation, Fire-Fighting Structure, etc. of the Building, electric wires and telecommunications feet installed in the EPS room from the third to the tenth floor of the apartment of this case, and water supply facilities and pipes shall be installed in a structure with a structure that recognizes the shock performance.

B) First, the breach of the duty of care (1) exists in the electrical construction contract made in the name of M and R Electrical Construction 4, but the Defendant appears to have directly selected the electrical construction company, etc. (as introduced from D, the contract amount of the electrical construction contract was directly calculated by the Defendant, and the head of the construction site of R Electrical Construction is stated in this law that he received the design drawing of electrical equipment from the owner of the construction. In light of the fact that the Defendant entered into an electrical construction contract with R Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d Electrical Construction d

In addition, even if the electrical construction contract has been concluded between M and RPS, it should have been managed and supervised so that the defendant can do construction to prevent the gap between electric wires and telecommunication pumps installed in the EPS room, water supply pipe and fire partition, or can do so.

① As seen earlier, the Defendant is in the position of the contractor from the time when M completes the structural construction of the instant apartment.

② At the time of construction of the apartment of this case, M only works to build a basic passage for electricity and facilities, etc. to enter each floor, and works to prevent the gaps in electric wires, telecommunications pumps, and water supply pipes around the end stage are likely to need to be performed when they complete the construction of electric wires or pipes and then dispose of them.

③ The Defendant directly selected an electrical construction and piping facility company (RPS electrical construction was introduced from D, and pipeline facility business operator was the Defendant first known from the date). However, according to the above electrical construction contract and a estimate attached thereto, it is doubtful that RD Electrical is an enterprise capable of executing the instant apartment construction work, such as water transfer equipment, electric power equipment, electric lighting equipment, heat equipment, information and communication equipment, cellphone equipment, and fire fighting equipment. RD Electrical is not registered as a fire fighting system business, information and communications construction business, and information and communications construction business. In addition, s, the chief of the technical department of RPS room, stated that the EPS unit’s cable and telecommunication equipment, and water supply pipe’s gap in the construction work of the apartment of this case. From the beginning, it is doubtful that RD Electrical is an enterprise capable of executing the instant apartment construction.

④ The Building Act and the Enforcement Decree thereof provide for the installation of a fire zone. Therefore, it shall not be deemed that the contractor is exempt from the responsibility of management and supervision on the ground that the Act provides that a contract for electrical construction shall be made to an electrical construction business entity, as alleged by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel, and that a fire zone shall be installed in the standards for electrical construction, and that the fire-prevention facility shall not be exempted from the liability of management and supervision (i.e., construction that fill such gaps of a fire zone, e., construction that provides the basic construction from the standards for construction works rather than the standards for electrical construction, to the materials

(2) Nevertheless, the Defendant did not fill the gap between electric wires and telecommunication pumps, water supply pipes, and fire zones installed in the EPS room from 3 to 10th of the instant apartment. Thus, the Defendant violated the above duty.

In addition, the door is installed in the ES room on the original design drawing, and according to the direction of the defendant, the door was installed in the upper part of the door so as not to function as a fire door (this part is recognized by the defendant himself). Accordingly, the ES room on each floor was not fireproofized with the residential part of the same floor. Thus, the defendant must pay more attention to the above ES room in a vertical fireproof way with other floors. 4) Whether the defendant violated his duty of care to install a door door and install a fire door in accordance with the design drawing.

Although the Defendant and the defense counsel must install a door in the EPS room from the 1st to the 10th 10th tier of the instant apartment in accordance with the design drawing, it is recognized that the Defendant violated the above duty by allowing U to have the above door installed in the light window. In addition, the Defendant installed the above door in general ethyl ethyl language which does not satisfy the fire-prevention performance, and breached the above duty of care (see the first prosecutorial examination protocol against C).

B. Whether causation 1) causation is recognized

Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned facts and the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the defendant was able to prevent the injury of the victims since the defendant was able to delay or prevent the combustion of the upper floor by the EPS room, and the fire doors installed in each floor EPS room were installed at the upper part of the door, and the causation Nos. 2, 1 through 77, 2, 14, 195, 196, 2, 195, 2, 195, 2, 196, 2, 195, 2, and 97, 2, 2, 195, 2, and 19, 2, and 5, 3, and 5, 3, and 5, 3, and 5, 3, and 5, as stated in the defendant's violation of the above duty of care and the annexed list No. 1, and the causal relation between the victim W et al.

A) The details of the spread of burning

① 이 사건 아파트 1층 주차장에서 발생한 화재 열기로 강화유리로 된 1층 현관문이 깨어지자 화염이 현관 안을 지나 1층 EPS실의 채광창을 깨고 EPS실로 옮겨 붙고, 1층 EPS실을 통해 10층 EPS실까지 전부 연소되었다. 또한 각 층의 EPS실에서 나온 화염에 의해 복도 방향의 천장이 연소되었다. 또한, 이 사건 아파트 화재감정서 ( 2 차, 증거목록 순번 395번 ) 에 의하면, 이 사건 아파트 주차장에서 발생한 화재로 1층 현관 유리문이 깨어진 다음부터 10초 후 1층 EPS실에 불이 붙기 시작하였고, 60초가 지난 후 1층부터 10층까지의 EPS실에 연기가 가득 찼으며, 90초가 지나자 7층 EPS실까지 연소가 확대되었다 ( 위 결과는 시뮬레이션에 불과하기는 하나 EPS실 자체에서의 연소 확산 속도를 나타내준다는 점에서 의미가 있고, 1층 현관 유리문 앞쪽에서 차량이 연소할 때 발생하는 열량을 그대로 반영하고, 현관유리문에서 1층 EPS실까지 거리도 실측한 것이며, EPS실 채광창이 있는 것까지 적용하여 그 정확도가 낮다고 볼 수는 없다 ) .

In light of this burning form and the result of the above fire appraisal, CCTV installed on the 7th, 8, 9 and 10th, and CCTV installed on the 10th, and CCTV installed on the 1st and the 09th, presumed that flames entered into the ES room by stopping all of the operation of the CCTVs: 25:0 after 20:0, the fire seems to have been rapidly spread to the whole floor through the ES room.

② According to the result of the fire site identification conducted by the Gyeonggi Provincial Police Agency (Evidence No. 313 No. 313), each floor of the apartment of this case was disseminated through electric wires (EPS rooms) for electric cables from the 1st to the 10th floor rather than that the flames were moved through stairs, and fire caused the flames emitted from the 10th floor to the corridor at the highest 10th floor end by moving the 10th floor. Furthermore, according to the results of appraisal by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Scientific Investigation Division (Evidence No. 369 No. Serial No. 369) of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, the main passage through which the flames were spread to the inside of the building at the parking lot of the 1st floor is determined to be a communications line.

In fact, the type of burning of the EPS room as seen earlier and the burning of the stairs room itself are not considerably conducted (the level of the heat of the wall of the stairs staff is weak as the upper floor is above the floor), and the major route of fire spreading, such as the result of the above appraisal, is determined to be the EPS room.

③ Meanwhile, according to the appraiser k and 1’s appraisal conducted by this court, the postponement that flows into a stairs room is presumed to have been spreaded through a stairs room within a short time as a result of a studio, but it is difficult to determine accurate inflows, etc. In fact, according to CCTV images inside a building, smokes would have first flow into the second floor through a stairs room.

In light of this, it seems that the postponement of fire caused by a fire has been spread through the stairs room, but as seen earlier, it is deemed that the combustion by itself was not done considerably, and through the door door opened at the entrance of the first floor of the stairs room, the smoke has been flowed into the entrance and the parking lot.

(B)the causal relationship between electric wires and telecommunication feet installed in the EPS room and the fire zones of water supply pipes (inter-storys) with negligence not filled;

As seen earlier, the fire that occurred at the parking lot of the apartment of this case was expanded through the PES room, so if it was equipped with the structure that is recognized as resistant shock performance, the gap of electric wires and telecommunication pumps installed in the ES room, and water supply pipes could have been delayed or prevented from burning and spreading into the upper floor even after it was moved to the inside of the ES room. In particular, as the combustion was spread to the upper floor EPS room through the 1st floor EPS room, this led to the spread of the fire into the upper floor EPS room, thereby reducing and expanding the damage caused by the outbreak, smoke and smoke spread inside the corridor, and the time the victims are able to withstanding inside the corridor due to poisonous gas.

C) The causal relationship between the negligence in installation of the EPS mining window

In light of the provision that Article 64 of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act and Article 26 of the former Rules on the Criteria for Evacuation and Fire-Fighting Structure, etc. of the Building, which was enforced at the time of the instant case, should secure performance for more than one hour in the string (the same purport as Article 26 of the current Rules), first of all, the type door of the first floor EPS room could have delayed or prevented the entry of fire into the first floor into the ePS room, and furthermore, at the EPS room of each floor, the fire or smoke toward the residential part could have been delayed or prevented for a considerable period of time.

D) The causal relationship between the negligence not installed in the Dozerdozer

If a fire door located in the stairs room of each floor had a chloud, even if the chloud and smoke entered the stairs room, it was possible to prevent the said smoke from entering each corridor. In particular, in light of the urgency at the time of a fire, it seems impossible for many people to continuously enter the stairs room and keep the doors open for a considerable time at the time of a fire. Accordingly, it can be confirmed that the door located in each stairs room was considerably opened at the time of a fire.

Above all, the door that was installed in front of the stairs room on the first floor, and if the above door was closed, it would have been able to prevent considerable time to enter the flame and smoke to the stairs room (if the first floor door was closed at the investigation agency, which is the researcher of the Korea Institute of Construction and Technology, Kim Heung-he stated that the first floor door might have been prevented from spreading up to a time.)

E) Whether the causal link due to the stop flight of fire fighting helicopter was cut off

In addition, according to the appraiser's appraisal results, it is presumed that the downside wind of the said fire helicopter was introduced through a stop flight of the instant apartment building through the upper part of the instant apartment building and the floor, and that the fire had an impact on the recurrence of the said fire due to the recurrence of the fire caused by the fire of the instant apartment building. In addition, it is probable that large volume of a smoke is likely to flow into the interior of the instant apartment building due to the downside wind.

However, as seen earlier, around 09: (a) around 25, CCTV ceased to operate and thus the combustion was expanded to the EPS room; (b) around 10:24, at around the time of the passage of one hour, the fire helicopter started a stop flight for lifesaving. Accordingly, in the case of victims, such as victims, V, etc., who seem to have escaped from the apartment of this case before that time, or the victim W or X who died after that time, such damage is irrelevant to the recurrence or spread of fire due to the stop flight of the fire helicopter.

In addition, even in the case of victims Y, Z, A, etc. who are likely to die or suffer injuries after the stop flight of the fire helicopter, if the EPS room is fireproofized, and the fire doors located in the stairs room are installed, it cannot be denied prior to the stop flight, the EPS room, the first floor stairs room, and each story road before the stop flight, and the possibility of fire fighting helicopter's help is not necessary due to fire extinguishment. ② Even if the EPS room and the first floor stairs room and the first floor roads were launched, if the EPS room were installed in the door door located in the stairs room, it seems that the inevitable effect of the expansion of the length of the helicopter was also reduced, ③ the appraiser's appraisal result that it is difficult to see that the fire fighting stairs of the defendant could have been suspended due to the expansion of the fire fighting department or the negligence of the defendant's fire fighting department, and ④ if the fire fighting department of the ePS room and the fire fighting department of this case could not be seen to have been spread.

2) The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the victim W (605) (1) the Defendant and the defense counsel claimed that the victim W was deceased by the flame and smoke that string the EPS light window glass from the 7th floor corridor, and the door opened between stairs and corridor, not by the flame and smoke that entered the door, but by the fire door opened between stairs and corridor, when the building outer wall was moved to the outside of the building, the defendant and the defense counsel went to the stairs room to escape from the building due to uneasiness, and died by the flame and smoke coming to the stairs room.

(2) According to the statements in the fire commander Kim 00 called at the time of the instant fire, statements in the investigation agency of the former 00, the statements in the 00 fire captain's statement, CCTV inside the building, the investigation report (in addition to the activities of the dispatch agency), the investigation report (such as W, Y, and the investigation time of death), and the investigation report (the confirmation of the Z death and the transfer of dead bodies, etc.), the victim W entered the 605 Na and the 7th floor, followed the sound from the 10th floor: around 18 rescue unit (the fire captain Kim 00, the fire assistant fire fighter, the fire fighter, the fire fighter 00, the fire fighter, the 200, and the 14th floor area): the victim's 4th floor was found to have not been aware of the victim's consciousness in the 4th floor, and the victim's 10th floor and the 2th floor area were transferred to the 20th floor.

이러한 피해자 W의 사망 경위에 비추어 볼 때, 각 층의 EPS실이나 계단실에 열려 있던 방화문을 통해 나온 화염이나 연기가 위급한 상황을 초래하여 피난하던 중 결국 4층 계단실에서 화염과 연기에 의하여 사망하였다고 할 것이어서, 피고인의 과실과 피해자 W의 사망 사이에 인과관계를 인정하지 않을 수 없다. 피고인과 변호인 주장과 같이, 계단실에 화염과 연기가 더 빠르게 가득 찼고, EPS실이나 계단실의 방화문을 통해 주거공간인 복도로 연기가 들어가지 않았음에도 피해자 W이 최후의 순간에 계단실을 택하여 계단실의 연기만에 의하여 사망하였다는 것은 납득하기 어렵다. 또한 , 앞서 본 바와 같이 계단실에의 화재 확산에도 피고인의 과실이 기여하였는바, 이러한 측면에서도 피고인과 변호인의 위 주장은 받아들일 수 없다 .

B) According to the victimY (906) (1) Defendant and defense counsel asserted that the 9th floor corridor and room had never been postponed until the victim Y enters the stairs room, and that the ePS room had not been fireed, and that the victim died due to the rapid postponement of inflow through the stairs room. (2) According to the statements within this court of the fire captain Kim 00 dispatched at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, the victim’s CCTV inside the building, the investigation report (Attachment to the activities by dispatch agency), the investigation report (such as W, Y, A investigation, etc.), the investigation report (verification at the time of the victim’s death, and the present situation of the death: around 09: around 25: 00, around 10: 20: 10, the victim was found to have been subject to the victim’s death from the escape room of the 25th floor, but the victim was found to have been subject to the victim’s death from the 25th floor.

In the case of victimsY, it is difficult to view that there was a death in the stairs room as a result of the postponement of the stairs room even though the postponement was not made through the door of the EPS room or the stairs room. As seen earlier, the defendant's negligence contributed to the spread of the fire in the stairs room. Ultimately, the causal relationship between the defendant's negligence and the death of the victim is acknowledged. The above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

C) The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the victim X (410) attempted to evacuate to the above 4th floor EPS room, even if the victim X had not yet been fireed, or that the fire had already been spread to the corridor, caused video death by the victim's room (2) 00, 100, 100, and 400, the victim X was released from the 4th floor stairs together with the O to the second floor stairs, and returned to the victim's 410, again, the defendant's 4th floor, and the defendant's defense counsel had no fault on the part of the victim's 4th floor before the victim X turned to the 4th floor stairs, and the defendant's defense counsel had no fault on the part of the victim's 4th floor prior to the victim's death. Accordingly, the victim's 4th floor and the defendant's defense counsel had no fault on the part of the defendant's 4th floor prior to the victim's death.

D) A victim A (503) (1) the Defendant and his defense counsel were killed due to a fire which, while waiting for a victim under subparagraph 503, led to a massive of 503 smokes resulting from a stop flight of a fire helicopter and a recurrence thereof.

one of the parties asserts that it would be.

(2) According to the statements within this Court of Justice Kim 00, the CCTV images inside the building, the investigation report (in addition to the activities of each dispatch agency), the investigation report (such as WW, Y, a time of death, etc.), and the investigation report (the confirmation of the time of death of the Z and the situation of the transfer of the dead, etc.), etc., the victim A, along with Kim 00, entered the stairs room at around 09:26, 00, again, returned to the stairs room at around 09:26, and returned to the stairs room at around 503, again, 09:51, while waiting for the above 503, filed a salvage report at least several times until 09:51, the fact that Kim 00 et al. was being postponed inside the room at that time, found a victim who had no awareness at around 09, and that the victim was judged to be a victim at around 12:52.

According to the above facts, from 09: 51 to 12:52, the death of the victim caused the postponement of entry into a corridor through the door of the stairs room or the ePS room.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the causal relationship between the negligence of the defendant and the death of the victim is recognized. Also, even if the victim was living until the commencement of the stop flight of the fire helicopter and the situation where the fire was expanded due to the stop flight of the fire helicopter, the above causal relationship cannot be denied (the defendant and the defense counsel asserted that there was an omission of the fire fighter's structure, but the negligence of the fire fighter at the time cannot be acknowledged, and such circumstance alone cannot be viewed to be severed the causal relationship between the defendant and the defense counsel). The above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

E) The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the victim’s Z (702) (1) fell through the stairs room immediately before the first stop of the fire fighting helicopter, and that the victim’s Z was rescued as the first floor of the underground floor due to the recurrence of the fire due to the stop flight of the fire fighting helicopter, and was salvaged to the 11:20 fire fighter at around 20, and that the fire fighter died due to the stop flight of the fire fighting helicopter.

(2) According to the statements within Kim 00 in this Court, CCTV images inside the building, investigation reports (attached to the activities of each dispatch agency), investigation reports (verification of the time of death of the Z and the present status of the transport of the dead, etc.), it can be confirmed that Kim 00 was discovered from the first floor of the underground floor of the fire fighting helicopter, the fact that the Z was discovered from the first floor of the underground floor of the fire fighting helicopter, the fact that the Z was sent from 10:40 to 10:50, and Kim 00 was found from 20:10 to 40.40.

The victim Z also is reasonable to view that the postponement discharged through the door of the EPS room or the stairs room and the delay in the stairs room have reached the death, and therefore, the causal relationship between the fault of the defendant and the death of the victim is recognized. The victim Z also has an extended fire caused by the stop flight of fire helicopter, and even if the expanded fire affected the death of the victim Z, the causal relationship between the negligence of the defendant and the death of the victim Z cannot be denied. The defendant and the defense counsel’s above assertion cannot be accepted.

F) The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that there is no causation between the Defendant and the injured victims (1) in the case of the Victimt (201), the Victim P, the Victim v (203), the Victims w, the Victims w, the Victims x, the Victims y (302, each 304), the Victims z (304), the Victims 6 (each 401), the Victims (501), the Victims (501), the Victims (501), the Victim V (103 - 1003), and the Victims (103 - 1), the victims who suffered an injury from the wind or wind from the second floor 206 rooms, and the victims who suffered an injury from the second floor and the second floor 2 are opened by themselves, and there is no further causal link between the negligence of the Defendant and the injury.

However, as seen earlier, the door door of the first and second floor is also the negligence of the defendant, unlike the design drawing, that did not install a Docle, and this is also the negligence of the defendant, and the door of the second floor was postponed to the 1st floor stairs, and even if the victims were also in possession of the second floor stairs, if the Docle was installed, the fire door of the second floor could make the maximum prevention from entering through the door door of the second floor if the Docle was installed (if there is a Docle, if there is a Docle, the door should continue to be opened, and the Docle is to be immediately closed), and there is causation between the defendant's negligence and the defense counsel. The above argument by the defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

(2) The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the victim (No. 411) suffered an injury from margument in the room No. 411, and the victims of other four floors were rescued in the room, and thus, the injury suffered by the victim has no causal link with the negligence of the Defendant.

However, according to each of the above evidence, the defendant's negligence and causation are acknowledged, since the fire doors opened or opened by EPS room or opened by EPS room entered the fourth floor of the 4th floor, and the defendant and the defense counsel suffered injuries to avoid the victim's emergency situation. The above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is unacceptable.

(3) The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that there is no causation between the defendant's negligence and negligence on the roof of a building, which is adjacent to the victim, ①, victim (No. 1004), victim ①, victim ②, victim ②, victim ② (No. 904), victim ② (No. 905), victim ② (811), victim ② (810), victim ② (805), victim ③ victim ③ victim ③ (No. 708), victim C (No. 606), victim ② (6), and victim ② (No. 602), the victim was born to the rooftop machine room through the stairs room.

According to each of the above evidence, since the above victims were born to the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the defendant and the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office of the office

However, as in the case of the victim X, the victim: (a) as in the case of the victim: (b) the victim and the victim suffered injury while avoiding to the stairs room due to flames entered into the corridor through the ePS room or the stairs room; or due to poisonous gas; and (c) the causal relationship with the Defendant’s negligence may be acknowledged. In addition, the victim may be recognized as having suffered injury due to the postponement of discharge discharged through the door of the stairs room in the ePS room or the heatr room; and (d) the causal relationship with the Defendant’s negligence may not be deemed to be severed on the ground that the fire helicopter was the stop flight or the omission of the fire fighter’s structure. The Defendant and the defense counsel

(5) The defendant and the defense counsel asserted that there is no causal link with the defendant's negligence since the victim (No. 907) was in a stairs room and suffered minor respiratory distress as the victim was evacuated to the rooftop.

However, the defendant's negligence and causation are recognized, since the victim also suffered injury by the ePS salt and smoke that was listed through the ePS room and the stairs room. The above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

(6) The defendant and the defense counsel asserts that 44 other waitings of the room could have suffered injury due to either smoke coming from the outer wall or the stop flight of the fire fighting helicopter, and that there is no causal link between the defendant's negligence and the negligence because it is possible to enter the stairs room or to be a bid by his own negligence.

However, the above victims are also waiting in the room, and they can be recognized to have suffered direct injury or injury in the course of escape from the smoke discharged into the corridor through the door of the EPS room or the stairs room, and even if there was no incidentalism of the victim or the fire expanded by the stop flight of the fire helicopter in the process, the causal link with the defendant's negligence is not severed. The defendant and the defense counsel cannot accept the above assertion. (7) The defendant and the defense counsel asserted that there was no causal link between the defendant's negligence and the defendant's negligence. (804)

According to the Certificate of Copy of Medical Records (10), it can be recognized that the victim suffered bodily injury due to the 30-minute smoke and the 3m height of the 30-minute smoke. If so, the victim suffered bodily injury due to the postponement of discharge into a corridor or the postponement of stairs discharged through the door of the EPS room or the stairs room.

We can see that there is a causal relationship between the negligence of the defendant and the defense counsel. The above argument by the defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted.

4. Determination on the charge of violating the Framework Act on the Construction Industry with respect to Defendant B

As seen earlier, M carried out electrical construction and installation works to be carried out together with the structural construction of the apartment of this case and the structural construction of the apartment of this case, and the Defendant directly carried out construction, such as giving a direct contract to the remaining construction works, and managing and supervising them. Therefore, even if the Defendant is not a constructor, it is recognized that he constructed a residential building exceeding 661m2 of the total floor area.

In accordance with Article 30-2 subparagraph 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, as alleged by the Defendant and the defense counsel, M is directly executed at least 20/100, and the remainder is permitted to give a subcontract, which does not allow M, a constructor, to give a subcontract, and it does not allow the Defendant, the owner of the building, to give a contract. The same applies to the case where the Defendant agreed with M, even if the Defendant and the defense counsel agree with M.

5. Determination as to Defendant C

(a) A supervisor in a construction project for the crime of occupational injury or death shall not be exempted from liability for the crime of occupational injury or death by having an independent expert from a project owner or contractor verify whether the construction has been properly executed in accordance with the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, design documents, etc., and instruct and supervise safety management, etc., so as to prevent defective construction; and a supervisor shall not be exempted from liability for the crime of occupational injury or death, if the result of his thought

The Defendant knew that the EPS room is not fireproof, and even though he knows that the gap of electric wires and telecommunications wires is not closed from noncombustible materials, he did not take any measure, and even if he was able to know well the fact that the door is not installed in front of the stairs room, he did not confirm it. Nevertheless, in preparing the supervision completion report, the Defendant entered false matters with A and B that the fire zone is appropriate. The Defendant also is liable for the crime of occupational negligence, death, occupational negligence, and injury to the Defendant’s defense counsel. The above argument by the Defendant and the counsel cannot be accepted.

(b) Violation of the Building Act;

The Defendant stated in the prosecutor’s investigation that the gap of electric wires and telecommunications sets in the process of completion supervision was not closed from noncombustible materials (in the process of interim construction supervision, it shall be deemed that there was awareness of the difference in electric wires and telecommunications sets in the process of completion supervision) and it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware of the fact that the gap in electric wires and telecommunications sets was not closed from noncombustible materials. Therefore, the Defendant’s “a statement of the fact suitable” in the fire partition column of the supervision completion report corresponds to a false report on completion of supervision.

In addition, even on the creative map prepared by the defendant, it is also stated that the door door is installed, and this can also be easily confirmed. Nevertheless, the defendant's "an appropriate entry" in the fire partition column among the escape facilities items of the report on completion of supervision constitutes the filing of a false report on completion of supervision, and even if the defendant failed to confirm whether or not the defendant is installed, the same applies.

The above assertion by the defendant and defense counsel cannot be accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment without prison labor for a month to five years, and a fine of KRW 50,000 to KRW 300,000;

B. Defendant B: Imprisonment of one month to seven years and six months. Defendant C: imprisonment of one month to seven years.

(d) Defendant D: Imprisonment for a month to four years and six months;

(e) Defendant E: fine of KRW 50,000 to KRW 60 million

(f) Defendant F: fine of KRW 50,000 to KRW 15 million;

G. Defendant G: fine of KRW 50,000 to KRW 2 million

(h) Defendant H: A fine of KRW 50,000 to KRW 10 million;

(i) Defendant I: Imprisonment of one month to two years;

(j) Defendant J: fine of KRW 50,000 to KRW 20 million;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

The sentencing guidelines are not set except for the crimes of occupational death and injury by occupational negligence, and the sentencing guidelines are not set. In addition, the sentencing guidelines are not applied in relation to the crimes of occupational death and injury by occupational negligence, and the crimes of occupational negligence and injury by occupational negligence as set forth below.

A. Defendant A

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 3 (Occupational Negligence, Gross Negligence, Death by Gross Negligence) basic area (from August to two years)

【No Special Convicted Person】

B. Defendant B and C [Scope of Recommendation] Type 3 (Occupational Negligence, Gross Negligence, Death by Gross Negligence)

【Special Persons in Progress】 Where the degree of violation of the duty of care or the duty of care for safety and health measures is serious;

3. Determination of sentence;

A. Defendant A

The Defendant, who did not extract a key from the Oralba, laid off the kibbb Park Habba as Lacker, caused more than 100 casualties, and eventually caused more casualties and a large amount of damage to property. The result of the crime is very significant. The victims or their bereaved family members did not have been used, and the damage was not recovered.

On the other hand, although the defendant violated the duty of care on the occurrence of fire, other negligence, such as the failure of the contractor or supervisor, illegal construction or supervision, etc., has increased damage.

The Defendant is a confession from an investigative agency to this court, in-depthly against himself/herself, and is repented. The Defendant is not good in health, such as being performed in a light-fluorial color and cutting down knee and right light below the left side. There is no previous conviction exceeding a fine.

In addition, the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, the background and result of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as the sentence as ordered.

B. Defendant B

The Defendant, as the owner and contractor of the instant apartment, violated the duty of care to construct the apartment in accordance with the construction-related laws and regulations and design drawings in order to prevent fire occurrence and expansion.

As a result, the fire in this case expanded, causing a number of casualties, and the result of the crime is very serious. Most victims and their bereaved family members were unable to obtain a letter from them, and the damage was not recovered. Moreover, even if the constructor is not a constructor, the apartment in this case constructed the apartment in this case, modified the permitted matters without the permission of the competent authorities, and violated the standards for the establishment of attached parking lots.

On the other hand, the Defendant has led to the confession of some crimes, and has been divided into several crimes. The Defendant agreed with the victim who was a de facto marital relationship A. The Defendant returned all the lease deposit of the victims who were the tenants. The Defendant also did not have any criminal history exceeding fines. There was no history of punishment exceeding fines. The Defendant received a chest treatment, and there is no high blood pressure, etc., which is relatively good health.

In addition, the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, relationship with victims, family relationship, and the crime of this case

In full view of the circumstances and results of the crime and all the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, the punishment shall be determined as ordered.

C. Defendant C.

The Defendant, as a design and supervisor, failed to properly supervise whether the contractor constructed a fire zone in accordance with the building-related laws and regulations and the design drawings, and prepared a false report on completion of supervision without taking measures to correct the fact that the fire zone has not been properly constructed, thereby allowing the seller to sell or use the defective construction structure. Ultimately, such negligence led to the expansion of fire and the occurrence of many casualties. As a result, the occurrence of a large number of casualties occurred. The victims and their bereaved family members were not able to recover the damage, and the Defendant did not have been able to recover the damage, and the Defendant appears to have been divided from this law regarding each of the above crimes. It is an initial crime with no criminal history. As such, the Defendant contributed to the local community by leading juveniles, etc., thereby receiving an official commendation.

In addition, the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, the background and result of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as the sentence as ordered.

(d) Defendant D, E, F, G, H, I, J.

The Defendants violated the construction-related administrative laws and regulations. These crimes may cause problems such as poor construction or safety accidents, and thus, the responsibility for such crimes is not weak.

Defendant D constructed L Apartment, a residential building with a total floor area exceeding 661m2, even though it is not a constructor, and Defendant D violated the duty of self-inspection on fire safety control of the above apartment.

As an agent for the on-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation, Defendant I falsely stated that it is appropriate for the fire partition column of the report of approval for use and inspection as an agent for the business of conducting an on-site investigation, inspection, and confirmation, and submitted it. The fire actually occurred in the apartment of this case, resulting in a number of casualties, due to the expansion of fire zones as above.

On the other hand, the Defendants both led to the confession of each crime and divided crimes. The result of thought does not directly arise due to each of the crimes committed by the Defendants. Defendant E does not appear to have directly participated in illegal construction activities, and Defendant G paid KRW 42 million to the victims of the said fire in order to recover damage. The Defendants are first offenders who have no record of committing a crime exceeding a fine, or who have no record of other crimes.

In addition, the defendant's age, occupation, character and conduct, family relationship, the background and result of the crime of this case, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as the sentence as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. Crimes of injury by occupational negligence (defendants A, B, and C);

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) by negligence in the course of business, such as the specific facts of the crime described in the judgment by the Defendant A, B, and C, as in paragraph (1) of this Article, the victim (attached No. 2 No. 14); (b) by negligence in the course of business as in paragraph (1) of the same Article; (c) the victim (attached Table 19 No. 2); (d) the victim (attached Table 2); (e) the (e) the same No. 50); (g) the (e) the same No. 54; (e) the two (e.g. 69); and (e) the two (e., the same No. 96; 97); (e) the victim (number 100; 102); and (e) the two (i) the same No. 108; and (iv) the same No. 1614; and (e) the same No. 160. 14.

B. Determination

In accordance with each of the above victims' statements or each of the statements prepared by the police officers, "It is recognized that the victim has taken shelter at the place" as stated in attached Table 2 of the crime sight table at the time of the occurrence of the above accident, but it is not clearly proven that the victim has suffered the same injury, and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of the above injury. There is no evidence to prove otherwise.

C. Conclusion

If so, the facts charged in this part of the facts charged (of the facts charged against Defendant A, B, and C, the victim ①, (0), (2), (2), (2), (7), (2), (2) the injury caused by occupational negligence among the facts charged against Defendant A, and (3) the victim9, (9), (4), (6), (7), (2), (4), (4), (2), (4), and (4), and (4) the injury caused by occupational negligence among the facts charged against Defendant A) shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since there is no proof of a crime. However, the facts charged against Defendant A, which are found guilty, shall not be tried separately.

2. Crimes of occupational deterioration (Defendant B and C);

(a) Summary of this part of the facts charged and applicable provisions of Acts;

Of the facts charged in this case, the summary of the part concerning the occupational negligence against Defendant B and C is as follows: the Defendants, together with Defendant A due to occupational negligence, such as the specific criminal facts in the judgment, destroyed the property, such as household appliances owned by 75 residents of the apartment of this case, as described in the attached Table 3 Nos. 1 through 75, and the prosecutor prosecuted the Defendants for the application of Articles 171, 170(2), 167, and 30 of the Criminal Act.

B. Determination

The crime of extinguishing fire is a crime which constitutes a constituent element of the occurrence of a fire by neglecting due care even though it could have predicted and avoided the occurrence of a fire. In the event that joint negligence with respect to the occurrence of a fire competes, each person who provided the cause of a fire shall be held liable as a co-principal of the crime of extinguishing fire. However, according to the records, Defendant B and C, as the constructor of the apartment of this case and supervisor of the construction of the apartment of this case, shall bear criminal liability for the expansion of fire due to erroneous construction or defective supervision. However, the above defendants shall not be held liable as co-principal of the defendant A who directly caused the fire on the premise that there was a negligence with respect to the occurrence of the fire of this case.

In addition, the crime of realizing by omission may be committed not only by the act but also by omission. However, the person who is in the position of guarantor can be the only person. On the other hand, the crime of omission is established when the person who is under the legal duty to act to prevent infringement of legally protected interests prohibited by the Criminal Act performs his/her duty to act and fails to perform his/her duty to act easily by allowing and neglecting the result is evaluated as an act of crime. Here, the duty to act is recognized as not only by law, legal act, preceding act, but also by the case where the duty to act is expected under the principle of good faith, social rule, or sound reasoning (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do1527, Apr. 15, 2016, etc.). Thus, the above defendants' act cannot be evaluated as having caused the above fire by failing to perform his/her duty to act in the position of guarantor who could have predicted or predicted the occurrence of a fire by Defendant A, and it can not be evaluated as having caused the above fire by failing to act in the position of guarantor.

I would like to raise an appeal.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of crime or there is no crime. However, as long as it is found guilty of the crime of death by occupational negligence and the crime of bodily injury by occupational negligence, the decision of the court shall not be pronounced not guilty separately.

Judges Park Jong-k, Counsel for judge

Judge Choi Dong-hun

Judges Noh Jeong-ho

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.