[1] Criteria for determining the identity of facts charged or facts charged

[2] The case holding that the facts constituting the crime of violation of the Fire Services Act and the facts charged by occupational injury or occupational loss cannot be evaluated as identical to the social facts constituting the basis thereof

[1] Whether the facts charged or criminal facts are identical should be determined by taking into account the normative elements of the defendant's act and the social factual relations based on the legal functions of the identity of the facts.

[2] The case holding that since the facts charged in violation of the Fire Services Act and the facts charged in occupational injury and loss of business all of the charges of violation of the summary order overlap in part in that they were conducted in close vicinity to the same place and date by mediating inflammable substances, as long as not only the contents of each violation, the grounds for punishment and responsibility, the direct legal interests, and the quality of the crime are clearly different, it cannot be evaluated that the social facts, which form the basis thereof, are the same.

[1] Article 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 298(1) and 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Do2080 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1368) Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2642 delivered on July 11, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1747)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2003No1422 delivered on September 2, 2004

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the District Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that "the defendant is the representative director of the Han Chemical Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant company") and the person in charge of the safety management of the above company, and that at around 08:50 on Jan. 17, 2002, ethyl ethyl ether (hereinafter referred to as "explosive substances of this case") from the camping site within the company had employees carry out the work of transferring approximately 7t of inflammable ethyl ethyl ether (hereinafter referred to as "explic substances of this case") from the tank croke to the KIcon, which is the tank tank, the defendant was equipped with adequate fire extinguishing facilities and appointed a safety manager to comply with the fire prevention regulations due to the storage, handling and transport of dangerous substances and leakage or explosion of dangerous substances, and that the defendant's act constitutes a crime of this case's crime of this case's severe damage caused by the above 10th of Seoul High Court's final judgment on the ground that it did not have proper duty to appoint a safety manager.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

However, we cannot agree with the above judgment of the court below.

According to the records, the defendant's act of violation of Article 114 subparagraph 2 and 3 of the Fire Services Act that "it stored and used approximately 9,00 liter's quantity, which is a dangerous substance, in the camping place in the defendant's company, from March 30, 199 to January 17, 2002 without obtaining permission from the competent authority for installation of a factory, etc. of dangerous substance." The defendant's act of violation of Article 114 subparagraph 2 and Article 114 subparagraph 2 of the Fire Services Act that "the defendant stored and used approximately 9,00 liter's quantity, which is a dangerous substance, in the camping place in the defendant's company, not the factory or the handling place of dangerous substance." The defendant's act of violation of Article 15 (1) and Article 16 (1) of the Fire Services Act, which constitutes a crime of violation of the duty of care of safety manager's duty of care and supervision, can be viewed as a violation of the duty of care of safety manager's.

However, the identity of the facts charged or the facts charged should be determined based on the defendant's act and the social factual basis, and the normative elements should also be considered (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Do2080, Mar. 22, 1994, etc.). Thus, inasmuch as the facts charged in violation of the Fire Services Act and the facts charged in this case were conducted in close vicinity at the same place and time as the media of this case, some overlaps should be made. However, as seen above, as long as the contents, attitudes, and the grounds for responsibility, and the direct legal interests and interests of each offense are different, as well as the nature of the crime are significantly different, they cannot be evaluated as identical to the social facts that form the basis thereof.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that the crime of violation of the Fire Services Act and the charges of this case are identical to the charges of this case, and thus the res judicata of the summary order of violation of the Fire Services Act extends to the charges of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant pursuant to Article 326 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act on the identity

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)