In a case where Defendant A was indicted for violating the former Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems on the ground that the employee of Defendant A was a person entrusted by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation with the management of apartment buildings, but the employee of Defendant A did not demand any measures to be taken by the Defendant A with knowledge that some of the fire safety control systems of apartment buildings were maintained and managed in a state of blocking electric power supply, and that fire-fighting facilities, such as emergency warning, were not operated in an apartment underground parking lot despite the occurrence of a fire in an apartment building, the case affirming the judgment below that acquitted Defendant A of the charges on the ground that the fire-fighting facilities are not “fire-fighting facilities, etc. in violation of the Acts and subordinate statutes” as stipulated

Articles 20(8) (see current Article 20(8) of the former Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (Amended by Act No. 13062, Jan. 20, 2015; Act on Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems) , 50 subparag. 6 (see current Article 50 subparag. 6 of the Act on Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems) , 52 (see current Article 52 of the Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act); Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant corporation

Prosecutor

Law Firm Pyeong River, Attorney Choi Han-soo

Suwon District Court Decision 2015No7547 decided June 22, 2016

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant on the ground that even if the non-indicted, who is the fire safety controller of the apartment of this case, did not demand any measures to the defendant with the knowledge that some of the fire-fighting systems of this case are maintained and managed in the state of blocking, the fire-fighting systems can not be deemed to constitute the "fire-fighting systems, etc. in violation of Acts and subordinate statutes" under Article 50 subparagraph 6 of the former Fire-Fighting Systems Act,

In light of the records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are all justifiable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles of Article 20(8) of the former Fire-Fighting Systems Act, or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules. In addition, the prosecutor asserts that the court below should have deliberated on the facts charged in this case as to whether Article 9(3) of the former Fire-Fighting Systems Act was violated or not. However, since the facts charged in this case and Article 9(3) of the former Fire-Fighting Systems Act are recognized as identical to facts charged in this case and the facts charged in this case can be recognized without changing indictment, the court below'

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cho Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)