All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. In light of Article 46(1) of the Housing Act, etc., the Defendants, as managers or occupants of the apartment of this case, fall under “related persons” under the Installation, Inducement, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act, and the Defendants received orders for correction and supplementation through the Director of the Management Office, and thus, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of all the charges charged against the Defendants, but acquitted the Defendants by mistake of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Article 43 of the Housing Act, which imposes the duty of management of multi-family housing on the project undertaker, etc., of the evidence of this case, is not included in the extension provisions including the project undertaker, as prescribed by Article 46(1) of the Housing Act.

In light of the above, a thorough examination of the facts in the judgment of the court below reveals that the defendant's owner, manager, and occupant of the apartment of this case, which is a specific fire-fighting object, cannot be seen as "related person" under the Installation, Custody, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendants notified the defendants as the object of the order for correction and supplementation, all the charges in this case against the defendants are not guilty, and there is no error of law as alleged by the prosecutor.

3. In conclusion, since all appeals against the Defendants by the prosecutor are without merit, they are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.