(a) The starting point of the statute of limitations for the crime of occupational injury and death;

B. Whether the crime of negligence was committed jointly

A. It is reasonable to interpret that the "act of crime as stipulated in Article 252 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the starting point of the statute of limitations, includes the result of the crime in question. Therefore, the statute of limitations for the crime of occupational injury or death shall run from the time when the victims have completed the crime by causing the result of the occurrence of the

B. "When two or more persons jointly commit a crime" under Article 30 of the Criminal Code includes not only the intentional crime but also the negligent crime.

A. Article 252(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 268 of the Criminal Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 78Do2082 delivered on September 26, 1978 (Gong1978, 11099) 79Do1249 delivered on August 21, 1979 (Gong1979, 1201) 82Do781 delivered on June 8, 1982 (Gong1982,60)

Defendant 1 and five others

Defendant 1 and three others and prosecutor

Attorneys Yang Ho-ho et al.

Daejeon High Court Decision 93No546 delivered on December 2, 1993

The part concerning Defendant 2 among the judgment below is reversed, and the case concerning this part is remanded to the Daejeon High Court.

All appeals by Defendant 1, 3, and 4 and prosecutor's appeals are dismissed.

With respect to Defendant 1, 100 days under detention after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

1. Determination on Defendant 1’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 and Defendant 2’s ground of appeal No. 2

It is reasonable to interpret to the effect that the "criminal act" stipulated in Article 252 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides for the starting point of the statute of limitations for a public prosecution, includes the result of the relevant crime. Therefore, the statute of limitations for the crime of occupational negligence in this case shall be deemed to run from the time when the victims have completed the crime due to the occurrence of the result

On the contrary, the statute of limitations expires for the crime of occupational injury and death after the lapse of five years. In this case, it is apparent that the victims of the crime of occupational injury and death have been prosecuted before the lapse of five years from January 7, 1993 that led to the death and injury, so the above defendants' assertion that the public prosecution was instituted after the completion of the statute of limitations is without merit. Thus, there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the starting point of the statute of limitations, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to discuss.

2. Judgment on Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 1

The judgment of the court of first instance, which maintained the construction site of this case, concluded the construction site with the non-indicted 1, and had the non-indicted 1 corporation directly participate in the construction of the above new building on July 1980, because the non-indicted 1 corporation and the non-indicted 1 corporation were to build new apartment buildings on the non-indicted 5th underground floor (the non-indicted 1 corporation's abbreviationd name). The non-indicted 2 and the non-indicted 3 corporation did not have any reasonable ground to believe that the non-indicted 1 corporation's construction work was not a new construction engineer's new construction work site and the non-indicted 1 corporation's construction work was not a new construction engineer's new construction work site and the non-indicted 1 corporation's construction engineer's new construction work was not a new construction engineer's new construction work site and the non-indicted 1 corporation's new construction engineer's new construction work was not a new construction engineer's construction work site and the non-indicted 1 corporation's construction supervisor's new construction work plan and construction work's new construction work.

3. Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 3 and his defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 2

The judgment of the court of first instance affirmed by the court below judged as follows as to the causes of the collapse of the building of this case.

이 사건 건물 신축공사의 설계자인 원심공동피고인 이 설계도서를 작성함에 있어서 설계구조도면상 기둥의 단면이 받는 콘크리트의 압축강도를 기준강도인 2.75에 훨씬 못미치게 설계하여 시공하게 하였는데다가, 피고인 1과 피고인 2 및 공소외 1· 2· 3 등이 함께 실제로 공사를 행함에 있어서도 이 사건 건물의 주요구조부인 기둥과 보 등의 콘크리트타설공사를 할때 시멘트·모래·자갈 등을 충분히 고르게 배합하지 아니한 채 높은 위치에서 깊고 급격하게 쏟아붓고 나무막대기 등으로 충분히 충전시키지 않는 등 부실하게 공사를 하여 자갈과 시멘트 등의 재료가 분리되어, 기둥과 보 등 구조물에서 심한 공극과 곰보현상 등을 나타나게 하여 적어도 1개 이상의 기둥 등을 설계상의 콘크리트 압축강도 180-210kg/㎡에 훨씬 못 미치는 114kg/㎡정도의 콘크리트 압축강도로 안전성이 크게 저하되게 하여 화기에 견디지 못하도록 시공하고, 또한 기둥 보 슬래브 등에서 철근을 배근할 때 설계도서와는 달리 보의 인장철근 22mm를 19mm로, 기둥의 주근철근 19mm를 16mm 등으로 바꾸어 약하게 배근하여 휨저항내력 등을 감소시키고, 철근의 이음부분도 기둥의 주근철근부분이 끊어지게 하는 등 제대로 잇지 않고 슬래브 등 응력이 큰 벨트부분에 철근이음을 하고, 보 등의 한 곳에 철근이음을 과다하게 많이 하여 콘크리트 투입을 완전하지 못하게 하여 콘크리트타설시 재료분리로 인한 공극현상을 심화시키고, 철근의 피복두께를 보에서 3cm 이상 유지하게 하여야 함에도 콘크리트 피복이 부족하게 하는 등 철근배근을 조잡하고 부실하게 시공하고, 지하층과 1층에 내력벽을 설치하지 아니하고 기둥만 노출되게 시공하여 건물의 축력을 감소시키는 등 이 사건 건물을 부실하게 시공함으로써, 1993.1.7. 이 사건 건물의 1층 상가 중앙부분에서 화재가 나자 위와 같은 설계도서 작성상의 문제점과 부실시공이 원인이 되어 콘크리트 압축강도 등의 안전성이 크게 저하된 건물중심부의 취약한 기둥 1개 이상이 화해(화해)를 입고 안전율이 저하되어 붕괴되면서 주변 인접 4개 기둥의 축력이 가중됨과 동시에 연쇄적으로 붕괴가 확산되어 이 사건 건물이 완전히 붕괴되었다는 것이다.

Examining and comparing the evidence adopted by the court of first instance by the court below with the records, the judgment of the court of first instance or the court of first instance as to Defendant 1 is just and acceptable, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by mistake of facts in violation of the rules of evidence without making a proper deliberation as to the theory of lawsuit, and as long as the construction of defective facts was found to have caused the collapse of the building of this case, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law in the judgment of the court below because the court below did not disclose what person was, such as theory of lawsuit, and it did not indicate what column the fire occurred in the building of this case on which column the building of this case was attached. Thus, there is no ground for all the arguments.

4. Judgment on Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 2 and his defense counsel’s ground of appeal No. 3

"When two or more persons jointly commit a crime" under Article 30 of the Criminal Code includes not only intentional crimes but also negligent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Do2082, Sept. 26, 1978; Supreme Court Decision 79Do1249, Aug. 21, 1979; Supreme Court Decision 82Do781, Jun. 8, 1982). In this case, Defendant 1 and the co-defendants of the court below have a duty of care to build the building in a safe and solid manner, as well as to build the building in this case by linking each other, they have a relationship of co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that the co-defendants of the court below and the co-defendants of the court below constituted a co-principal relationship under Article 30 of the Criminal Code is justified, and it is not justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legal principles as to the crime of occupational negligence or death as alleged in the judgment.

5. Judgment on Defendant 2’s ground of appeal No. 1

A. The judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below held that Defendant 2 was negligent in collecting, using, and supervising the construction of, the large building caused by defective construction works without any specific technical qualification even though he/she had a duty of care to prevent the collapse of the large building caused by defective construction works, by neglecting his/her duty of care to prevent the collapse of the large building caused by defective construction works, and neglecting his/her supervision over the new construction works, and by neglecting his/her duty of care in detail, Defendant 2 neglected his/her duty of care to specifically neglect his/her duty of care.

B. However, according to the records and comparison of relevant evidence, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1 decided to directly construct the instant building without giving a contract for construction work and establish the said company. The above company’s direct construction supervision without any construction engineer to direct and supervise the construction work for each part of the building. In addition, the above Defendant, a joint representative director, frequently purchased important materials, such as steel bars and cement, while staying at the construction site, and did not directly or indirectly lead and supervise the contractor, it is difficult to recognize that the above Defendant, except Nonindicted 1, who is a joint representative director, was not in charge of construction work, and was not in charge of construction work at the construction site, and thus, it is difficult to find that the above Defendant was not in charge of construction work at the 0th construction site so that it was difficult for him/her to directly or through the head of accounting and management office, and that the above Defendant was not in charge of construction work at the 00th construction site and was in charge of construction work at the 0th construction site. It is also difficult to recognize that the above Defendant was in charge of construction work at the above 0000th construction site.

C. Nevertheless, in full view of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the first instance court, the court below judged that it is sufficient to recognize the facts charged due to occupational injury or death of the above defendant. The judgment of the court below is not proper or erroneous in finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence, and it is obvious that such illegality has affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is a reason to point this out.

6. Judgment on Defendant 3’s ground of appeal Nos. 1 and Defendant 4

If the evidence adopted by the first instance judgment maintained by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that the above defendants' preparation of the false official document and facts constituting the crime of the same events are committed, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there

7. Determination on Defendant 1’s ground of appeal Nos. 4 and Defendant 3’s ground of appeal No. 2

As in the instant case, with respect to a judgment on which imprisonment without prison labor for three years and a sentence to suspend the execution for two years with prison labor for one year is sentenced, it cannot be the grounds of appeal on the grounds that the amount of punishment is unreasonable, so no grounds for

8. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the above defendants on the ground that there was no error in the process of finding facts in the process of the first instance, and in light of the facts duly established by the first instance court, it cannot be deemed that Defendant 5, the president of the commercial building, and Defendant 6, the security guards of the commercial building, were negligent in performing their duties of care required for them, and that the cause caused the death and injury of the victims was caused by the collapse of the building of this case, and there was no possibility for the above defendants to anticipate the collapse of the building of this case due to fire and to take measures to avoid the occurrence of casualties, and there was no possibility for the above defendants to take measures to avoid this. The judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the above defendants on the ground that the judgment of the court of first instance is just and acceptable, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

9. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant 2 is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. All of the appeals by Defendant 1, 3, and 4 and the prosecutor's appeals against Defendant 5 and 6 are dismissed. With respect to Defendant 1, part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence of the court of first instance. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)