The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The crime of violating the Safety Control of Elevator Facilities in the Republic of Korea, which did not undergo a regular inspection of the elevator's summary of the grounds for appeal within one year, constitutes a crime of omission, and thus, if the regular inspection period has been recognized, it shall be deemed that the intention is recognized.

In the instant elevator, a certificate of passing an inspection stated as the term of validity from December 30, 2014 to December 29, 2015 was attached to the instant elevator, and the Defendant, who was appointed to the church, was a three-month period from January 1, 2017 to March 31, 2017, when the control was taken place, and thus, the Defendant was aware of the fact that the regular inspection period of the instant elevator was expired.

It is reasonable to view it.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The summary of the facts charged is that the defendant is the pastor of the D church in the complete Busan-gu, Jeonju-si, and the actual managing body of elevators established in the D church.

Any person recognized as the managing body of the boarding machine shall manage the elevator to continuously maintain its function and safety, and shall undergo a regular inspection of the elevator conducted by the Minister of National Safety within one year from the date of the immediately preceding regular inspection conducted by the Minister of National Safety.

Nevertheless, as the managing body of an elevator installed in a D church, the defendant neglected to perform his/her duty to continuously maintain the function and safety of the elevator, and without undergoing a regular inspection until the period of validity of the regular inspection of the elevator (by December 29, 2016) expires, and the defendant has not undergone a regular inspection.

1. From January 1 to April 12, 2017, it was illegally operated.

Accordingly, the defendant operated the elevator illegally without undergoing a regular inspection, the term of validity of which expires.

3. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination is based on the following facts and circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence adopted.