2015No7547 Violation of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act

A Stock Company

Prosecutor

Park Jong-sung (Court) and Kim Jong-Un (Court of Justice)

Law Firm AM, Attorney Lee Dong-soo

Suwon District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 593 decided December 3, 2015

June 22, 2016:

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

In light of the contents of 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; hereinafter referred to as the “Fire-Fighting System Act, regardless of whether such expulsion was made before or after the amendment,” the meaning of the “fire-Fighting System Act” as provided by Article 20(8) shall be construed as including cases where fire-fighting systems are maintained and managed in a state that they cannot perform the functions required by the Fire-Fighting System Act, etc.

In addition, "necessary measures such as repair, relocation, removal, and repair of fire-fighting objects" under Article 20 (8) of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act shall be interpreted as including necessary measures such as repair of the fire-fighting systems themselves.

Therefore, the facts charged of this case are recognized as a violation of the Fire-Fighting System Act because Article 52, Article 50 subparagraph 6, and Article 20 (8) 2 of the Fire-Fighting System Act are applied.

2. Determination

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the Defendant was acquitted, on the ground that the above provision of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act cannot be applied, even if F, a fire safety controller of the apartment of this case, did not demand any measures against the Defendant, knowing that some of the fire-fighting facilities of the apartment of this case were maintained

A thorough examination of the reasoning of the lower judgment’s acquittal and the evidence of this case, and further examination of the following reasons, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the facts charged of this case are not guilty based on the aforementioned evidence judgment and interpretation of the law. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion is

① Interpretation of penal provisions must be strict, and excessively expanded or analogical interpretation of the meaning of an express provision to the disadvantage of the defendant is not permitted as it is contrary to the principle of no crime without the law. Such principle of statutory interpretation also applies to the interpretation of administrative law in a case where the contents of the administrative law that is subject to the said penal provisions are contents (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4582, Jun. 29, 2007).

② Article 20(8) of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act provides that “When a fire-fighting system, escape facility, fire-fighting facility, fire-fighting partition, etc. is found to be in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes, it is somewhat abstract, and the Act and subordinate statutes do not specifically stipulate any provision of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act. Therefore, it is unclear whether “person related to a specific fire-fighting object” committed an act of closing, blocking, etc. which may interfere with the function and performance of the fire-fighting system in violation of Article 9(3) of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act is included in cases where “the act of closing, blocking, etc.

③ Article 2(1)1 of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act provides for the definition of "fire-fighting systems", Article 2(2) of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act, and Article 2(1)1 of the Framework Act on Fire-Fighting Services provides for the definition of "fire-fighting objects". Article 20(8) of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act provides that when a fire-fighting safety supervisor finds that fire-fighting systems, escape facilities, fire-fighting facilities, and fire-fighting partitions are in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes to protect human life and property, he/she shall, without delay, demand the interested parties of the objects of fire-fighting to take necessary measures, such as the number, relocation, removal, and repair of the objects of fire-fighting, clearly distinguish "fire-fighting systems that are in violation of the Act and subordinate statutes" and "fire-fighting objects that require measures such as relocation. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted that the above "fire-fighting facilities" itself should be accepted.

(4) Therefore, interpreting each relevant provision of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act in a comprehensive meaning, as alleged by the public prosecutor, is not permissible as it excessively or analogically interpreted or analogically interpreted in the direction unfavorable to the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The number of judges transferred to judges

Judges Lee Jae-ho

Judges Hwang Sung-sung

1) [Article 9(1) of the Fire-Fighting System Act]

An interested person of a specific fire-fighting object shall install, maintain and manage fire-fighting systems that shall be equipped in consideration of the size, use, hazard characteristics, user characteristics, capacity of accommodation, etc. of the specific fire-fighting object in accordance with the fire safety standards determined and announced by

2) [Article 52 of the Fire-Fighting System Act]

If the representative of a corporation, or an agent, employee or other servant of the corporation or an individual commits an offence under Articles 48 through 51 in connection with the business of the corporation or the individual, not only shall such offender be punished, but also the corporation or the individual shall be punished by a fine under the relevant provisions: Provided, That this shall not apply where such corporation or individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such

[Article 50 of the Fire-Fighting System Act]

Any of the following persons shall be punished by a fine not exceeding three million won:

6. A fire safety controller who fails to request a fire safety controller to take necessary measures even though he/she finds that a fire-fighting system, escape facility, fire-fighting facility, fire-fighting partition, etc. violates any Act or subordinate statute

[Article 20 (8) of the Fire-Fighting System Act]

When a fire safety controller finds that a fire-fighting system, escape facility, fire-fighting facility, fire-fighting partition, etc. violates statutes to protect human life and property, he/she shall, without delay, request an interested person of the object of fire safety to take necessary measures, such as repair, relocation, removal, and repair of the object of fire-fighting, and if the interested person fails

[Article 9 (3) of the Fire-Fighting System Act]

In maintaining and managing a fire-fighting system pursuant to paragraph (1), an interested person of a specific fire-fighting object shall not conduct an act of closure (including locking; hereinafter the same shall apply) or blocking, etc. that may disturb the function and performance of the fire-fighting system: Provided, That he/she may close or block a fire-fighting system for inspection or maintenance.

3) [Article 2(1) of the Fire-Fighting System Act]

1. The term "fire-fighting systems" means fire-fighting equipment, alarming equipment, escape equipment, fire-fighting water equipment, and other equipment for fire-fighting activities prescribed by Presidential Decree;

4) [Article 2(2) of the Fire-Fighting System Act]

The terms used in this Act shall, except as otherwise expressly provided for in paragraph (1), be defined in the Framework Act on Fire Services, the Fire-Fighting System Installation Business Act, the Safety Control of Dangerous Substances Act and the Building Act.

[Article 2 of the Framework Act on Fire Services]

1. The term "object of fire service" means buildings, vehicles, ships (limited to ships defined in Article 1-2 (1) of the Ship Act, which are moored in a port), structures for shipbuilding, forests, and other artificial structures or goods;