[1] The meaning of a person obligated to report the use of specified high-pressure gas under Article 20(1) of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act

[2] The case holding that since a person who directly occupies and manages the filling and storage facilities for specified high-pressure gas in relation to the new construction of a building is not a contractor but a subcontracted contractor, the contractor does not constitute a person obligated to report under Article 20 (1) of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act

[1] Article 20(1) of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act provides that a person who intends to use specified high-pressure gas and has capacity to store specified high-pressure gas above a certain size shall report to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu in advance before using the specified high-pressure gas. In light of the language and text of the above provision, legislative purpose, relevant statutory structure, and the principle of strict interpretation of penal laws, a person who is liable to report the use of specified high-pressure gas under the above provision refers to a person who

[2] The case affirming the judgment below holding that in case where a company which has been subcontracted with the construction of a new building from the construction of a new building entered into a high-pressure gas supplier contract individually with a high-pressure gas supplier and brought into the construction site for gas containers and contact facilities without reporting the use of specified high-pressure gas, the company directly occupies and manages the filling and storage facilities for specified high-pressure gas shall not be the person obligated to report as provided by Article 20 (1) of the High-pressure Gas Safety Control Act, since the contractor is a subcontractor who

[1] Article 20 (1) of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act / [2] Article 20 (1) of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Attorney Kang Jin-chul et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009No99 Decided May 13, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 20(1) of the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act provides that a person who intends to use specified high-pressure gas and has capacity to store specified high-pressure gas more than a certain size shall report to the head of a Si/Gun/Gu in advance before using specified high-pressure gas. In light of the language and text of the above provision, legislative purpose, relevant statutory structure, and principle of strict interpretation of penal law, etc., a person liable to report the use of specified high-pressure gas under the above provision shall be deemed to have directly occupied

The summary of the facts charged of this case is that Defendant 2 Co., Ltd. and Defendant 2 Co., Ltd.’s employees, who are the executing company of the entire new construction of this case, violated the High-Pressure Gas Safety Control Act by failing to report to the head of the competent Gu when using specified high-pressure gas, such as oxygen, etc.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the person who directly occupied and managed the filling and storage facilities of specified high-pressure gas at the site of the new construction project in this case based on the employed evidence was not Defendant 2 corporation but the non-indicted corporation, etc. who subcontracted the steel framed construction, etc. from Defendant 2 corporation, and the subcontractor such as the non-indicted company, respectively concluded a high-pressure gas supply contract with the high-pressure gas supplier and brought the gas containers and contact facilities held by them into the site of the new construction project in this case and used them to use them at the site of the new construction project. Since the person who directly occupied and managed the instant gas-using facilities is not Defendant 2 corporation but the non-indicted corporation, etc., the

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and decision by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the person liable to report the use of specified high-pressure gas

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

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)