(a) Whether an act of guiding a minor guest to the entrance of the hole constitutes an act of allowing a minor to enter the hole;

(b) Whether a person who rents the owned building is obligated to appoint a fire prevention manager;

A. In the event that the principal person was determined by the second floor entrance, the Defendants’ act of guiding minors cannot be deemed as the act of allowing minors to enter the entrance or the act of aiding and abetting them.

B. With respect to a leased building, a lessee who has a duty of care is responsible for formulating a fire-fighting plan and appointing and operating a fire-fighting manager, and a mere owner who is not in a realistic management relationship is not obligated to appoint a fire-fighting manager in overlapping with the lessee.

(a) Articles 2 and 4 of the Minor Protection Act; Article 2 and Article 10 of the Fire Services Act;

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Chang-chul, Counsel Park Do-young

Daegu District Court Decision 83No2408 delivered on February 16, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the violation of the Minor Protection Act:

In full view of the evidence cited in the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendants, as a sweaker in the judgment of the court of first instance, assigned a guide to the second floor of the entrance in the second floor of the court below as co-defendant (the main owner), the chief of the affairs, the chief of the business, and the directors, etc., for the time indicated in the judgment of the court of first instance, and the second floor of the defendant was informed of the opening in the second floor, and there is no evidence that the co-defendant et al. received the access certificate from the prior opening in the sweak-gu and allowed the access to the second floor, and there is no other evidence that the defendants allowed the access to the minors. Thus, if we agree with the above fact-finding process in light of the records, it is reasonable that the defendants merely provided the entrance guidance to the minors, and that the above acts of the defendants cannot be deemed as having access to the minors immediately at the second floor, and that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to aiding and abetting the rules of evidence.

2. As to the violation of the Fire Services Act:

According to the records, the special area of the fire-fighting object which requires the appointment of a fire-fighting manager under Article 10 (1) of the Fire Services Act and Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which is designated as a fire-fighting manager, shall be equal to the original market at the time when the fire-fighting manager is assigned the duty of performing the matters set forth in Articles 10 (2) and 9 and 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the person who appointed the fire-fighting manager refers to the owner, manager, or possessor of the fire-fighting object under Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the same Act. In light of the above contents of the affairs of the fire-fighting manager (Article 8 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act), if there is another person who actually uses the building, such affairs shall be taken by the user, and it shall be interpreted that the above "related person" is also appropriate to the legal system and purport of the above "related person," and the court below has no responsibility to establish and operate a fire-fighting plan for the leased building in this case, and there is no obligation to oppose the defendant.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)