Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 7,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant worked in the restaurant for eight staff members of the D Hospital in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and 63 hospital staff members and 42 hospital patients were hospitalized in the D Hospital.

On April 5, 2017, the Defendant had a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of a fire in advance by taking measures, such as regulating temperature, etc., until the cooking is completed, inasmuch as the Defendant was preparing cams at a restaurant kitchen around 14:00.

Nevertheless, the defendant put the fresh into the oil smell as it is, put the fresh, put the fresh into the excessive oil smell by negligence, and put the fresh to the wall of the cafeteria and the entire tent.

In the end, the Defendant destroyed the building of the D Hospital with the repair cost of KRW 1.6 billion by negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Report on the results of field identification, and the application of Acts and subordinate statutes to fire-generating photographs;

1. Article 170 (1) and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the defendant's and his defense counsel's assertion is acknowledged that the money was stored in oil smells at the time and place stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the defendant, but at the time the dietitian instructed the defendant to leave the food board in the employee restaurant, and the defendant did not follow such instructions and did not have any possibility of lawful act. Thus, the defendant asserts that there is no possibility of expectation of lawful act.

2. In order to determine whether there is a possibility that the defendant would expect a lawful act, it is possible to expect that the defendant would have a social average person instead of the actor in the specific situation at the time of the act from this average person.