logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.03.07 2017고정973
화재예방,소방시설설치ㆍ유지및안전관리에관한법률위반
Text

Defendants are not guilty.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is a service company entrusted with the management of Kimpo-si D Building (hereinafter “instant building”), and Defendant A is a person who is dispatched as the director of the facility division of the instant building to the employees of the said B company and takes charge of the management of the fire-fighting system of the instant building.

1. No person related to a specific fire-fighting object A shall engage in any activity, such as closing (including locking) or blocking (including locking) that may impede the function and performance of a fire-fighting system in maintaining and controlling the fire-fighting system;

Nevertheless, on March 2016, the Defendant, while serving as a person in charge of fire-fighting duties in the instant building, closed 32 out of 36 fire-fighting systems, which are installed in each floor from the 1st floor to the 8th floor of the ground surface of the said building, in order to prevent fire, and maintained the pipe valve in a closed condition from that time until July 2016, the Defendant maintained 32 out of 36 fire-fighting systems, which were installed by six units for fire-prevention.

2. As to the Defendant’s business, the Defendant Co., Ltd. closed 32 of the pipe valves 36 valves, which is a fire-fighting system, as set forth in paragraph (1) above, as an employee, as to the Defendant’s business.

2. Determination

A. Among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant's statement to the effect that the defendant made a confession at the investigative agency is sufficient. However, although the defendant's closed valves are 32, the charge of this case is about 32, but the defendant stated 19 the number of valves closed at the investigative agency, but only changed to 34 and stated 32.

However, the defendant's statement of the purport of confession at the investigation stage cannot be trusted in light of the following circumstances revealed in the record:

1) The Defendant has reached this Court’s order and all of the above statements.

arrow