(a) Responsibility for the death or injury caused by occupational negligence in the course of business by fire at the hotel of the head of a hotel not directly involved in the business;

(b) Punishment of negligence offenders under the Administrative Control Act;

A. The company operating a hotel has a representative director separately, and the company's actual manager has a regular director, manager, chief of the management office, and chief of the business division under the overall manager in charge of the company's business affairs to share and manage each business affairs. On the other hand, if the company is designated as a fire safety manager under the Fire Services Act, and the company is reported to the authorities, and the company is required to guide and supervise the fire training and fire use or handling, the so-called chairperson who was not engaged in the business affairs of the above company is responsible for general and abstract direction and supervision of the employees of the above company, and there is no specific and direct duty of care for the expanded fire.

B. Even if an administrative regulation is a law that mainly takes place, an intentional act may be punishable in accordance with the principle of criminal law unless there is a clear provision or interpretation that the criminal negligence is punishable.

A. Articles 268 and 14 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 76Do2676 delivered on January 30, 1973

Defendant 1 and five others

Prosecutor, Defendant 1, and 2

Attorney Yoon Do-young, Park Jae-il

Daegu High Court Decision 84No1335 delivered on November 6, 1984

Of the judgment of the court below, the guilty part against Defendant 1 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

All of Defendant 2’s appeals and prosecutor’s appeals against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Defendant 1’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are also examined.

According to the judgment of the court of first instance that maintained the judgment, Defendant 1, as the chairperson of the above non-indicted 1 corporation, comprehensively takes charge of the management of tourist hotels operated directly by the above non-indicted 1 corporation. Co-defendant 1, who directly works for the hotel management from the 4th floor of the above hotel, directly operates the health clubs on the adjacent building connected to the above 4th floor of the company, the court below should take measures to ensure that the above health clubs, as well as the principal building of the second-class tourist hotel, are installed to prevent defective quality from using the above health clubs in the above 4th floor, and to ensure that the non-indicted 1 and the above 4th floor facilities of the above 4th floor were removed from the above 4th floor and to prevent fire-fighting and fire-fighting accidents, and to ensure that all fire-fighting and fire-prevention measures should be taken as soon as possible, and safety measures should be taken to prevent the occurrence of fire and fire-fighting accidents, as well as to protect employees from spreading.

However, according to the records, non-indicted 1 corporation established and operated the above hotel non-indicted 2 on May 16, 1975. When Non-indicted 2 died on Sep. 1, 1983, he was appointed as the chairperson of the above company 14 months. However, the non-indicted 2's co-defendant 1 was born after the death of non-indicted 2 at the time, and there was no experience in corporate management, so the court below's appointment of the co-defendant 1 as the actual manager and management of the above company as the defendant's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 7's non-indicted 1 as the defendant's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 9's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 2's non-indicted 3's non-indicted 19's non-indicted 2's.

2. Defendant 2’s ground of appeal is examined.

In full view of the evidence cited by the first instance judgment maintained by the lower court, the facts constituting the crime of bribery of this case can be fully recognized against the same defendant, and there is no misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, and therefore, the argument is groundless.

3. Each prosecutor’s ground of appeal is examined.

(1) The part on Defendant 1’s violation of the Fire Services Act and the Building Act:

Even if an administrative regulation is a law that mainly takes place, it may be punishable only when there is an intentional act in accordance with the principle of the Criminal Act, except where there is a clear provision or interpretation that criminal negligence is punishable. In light of the facts charged by the prosecutor as well as the facts charged of violating the Fire Services Act and the Building Act and applicable provisions, it does not require an intentional act. Thus, in this case, the defendant can be punishable with an intentional act. Accordingly, according to the records, there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts that the defendant was aware of the violation of the fire-fighting system or the Building Act, which was incomplete by the head of Busan City fire Station and the head of Busan City Fire Station, and the head of Busan District Fire Station, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was aware of the fact that each order of this case was delivered to the same company on the premise that the defendant is the representative director of the non-indicted corporation 1, it is reasonable in light of the empirical rule to regard that the defendant was aware of the facts charged, but the defendant is not the representative director of the above company, and there is no error in the judgment below finding that there is unlawful.

(2) According to the records on the preparation of false official document and the part on the same events against Defendants 2 and 3: The defendants requested the inspection of the facilities for the business of the above hotel company and the resumption of the above hotel company from around 14:00 to 23:00 on September 13, 1983 at around 10:0, and the defendants did not confirm the actual temperature of the above hotel company and sent a trip to the above hotel company or the site from around 20:00 on September 15, 1983, and it cannot be deemed that the above regular official document was prepared as a mistake of facts on September 15, 1983 at around 09:0 on the same day after visiting the above company or the site, and at around 10:00 on September 15, 1983, the judgment of the court below which found the defendants not guilty of the above official document.

(3) On Defendant 4, 5, and 6:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the above defendants guilty on the facts charged of this case against the above defendants, namely, that the above defendants did not know that the Kim Jin-jin's facility was changed to an emergency room of the above hospital from 117-314, the defendant's non-indicted Kim Jin-jin, the owner of the building, conspired to conceal the above Kim Jin-jin's parking facility, and to file a complaint against the non-indicted Jin-jin's mere constructor, the owner of the building, on March 23, 1983, to be exercised at the above office building and the office of the above Gu, and entered the false public document in the name "Gin-jin" column of the owner of the building and kept it at the same time, and there is no evidence to prove that the above defendants' use of the above Kim Jin-jin's facility was changed to the above Kim Jin-jin's facility without permission. However, according to the evidence of this time, the court below stated that "the above defendant Lee J-jin-jin's's'sk's name" and attached to the above 2.

4. Therefore, Defendant 1’s appeal is with merit, and thus, it reversed the conviction part of the judgment of the court below against the same defendant and remanded to the Daegu High Court. Defendant 2’s appeal and the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are without merit. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)