beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The purport of the grounds for appeal is that a fire-fighting system prescribed in Article 20(8) of the Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (amended by Act No. 13062, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter referred to as “fire-fighting system Act, regardless of whether it was before or after such expulsion was changed; hereinafter referred to as “the Act of Fire-Fighting Systems”) means “any fire-fighting system in violation of the statutes”; Article 9(3) of the Act of Fire-Fighting Systems; Article 9(1) of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act; and Article 9(1) of the Fire Safety Standards [Article 9 of the Act] related person of a specific fire-fighting object shall be installed, maintained, and managed in accordance with the fire safety standards determined and publicly notified by the Minister of National Safety, taking into account the size, use, risk characteristics, user characteristics, and accommodation number of the specific fire-fighting object, as prescribed by Presidential Decree
In light of the contents of this, it should be interpreted that fire-fighting systems are maintained and maintained in such a state that they cannot perform the functions required by law of fire-fighting systems.
In addition, "necessary measures such as repairing, moving, removing, and repairing fire-fighting objects" under Article 20 (8) of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act should be interpreted as including necessary measures such as repairing the fire-fighting systems themselves.
Therefore, the facts charged of this case shall be punished by a fine under the corresponding provisions in addition to the punishment of an offender, if a representative of a juristic person, or an agent, employee or other worker of a juristic person or individual commits an offense falling under any of Articles 48 through 51 in connection with the business of the juristic person or individual.
Provided, That this shall not apply where a corporation or an individual has not been negligent in giving due attention and supervision concerning the relevant duties to prevent such violation.
[Article 50 of the Act on Fire-Fighting Systems] Any of the following subparagraphs: