The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The Defendant’s defense counsel on the gist of the grounds of appeal asserted the lower judgment on the grounds of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine and unreasonable sentencing in the statement of reasons for appeal. However, the Defendant and the defense counsel acknowledged all the facts charged at the fifth trial date of the first instance trial and withdrawn the misapprehension of the legal doctrine among the reasons for appeal

The sentence of the court below against the defendant (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case by the head of the management office is found to be disadvantageous to the defendant, in light of the substance of the crime, because the defendant, who is a fire-fighting system, left alone in the state of blocking the type of automatic fire detection equipment and the earth's landscape location, and thus a fire is not alerted at the time of the occurrence of the fire, thereby causing injury to residents living in an apartment complex, such as inhaled images of the number of days of treatment, and the addiction of the oxygen carbon, etc.

However, there are many cases where the defendant made a confession to commit the crime in this case, and the apartment residents filed many civil petitions against it to the apartment management office due to the deterioration of the alarm system of the automatic fire detection equipment in this case, and the defendant had already been managed in the state of blocking the closing of the above alarm system and the location of the earth around the district before he was appointed to the management office, but the defendant has also been leaving it passively. In particular, in relation to the course of committing the crime, the defendant was appointed as the head of the management office and continuously demanded the improvement or repair of the above alarm system to the representative meeting of the occupants after he was appointed as the head of the management office, and the representative meeting of the occupants tried to replace it by presenting it as the actual agenda at the request of the defendant, but the representative meeting was finally decided to suspend the above agenda on the ground that there was no allowance for apartment repair.