logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.08.23 2018노579
화재예방ㆍ소방시설설치유지및안전관리에관한법률위반
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: On July 22, 2016, the head of the U.S. District Court on the misunderstanding of facts, Defendant A, who was appointed as the representative director of the U.S. farming association, on July 26, 2016, was issued the instant corrective order or was not subject to transfer of such contents.

The judgment of the court below which found the Defendants guilty on the premise different from this, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

2. The defendants' above assertion cannot be accepted in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

A. On July 20, 2016, the head of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries conducted a special fire-fighting investigation on Defendant B’s agricultural partnership on July 20, 2016, and notified Defendant B of the instant corrective order by detecting any violation of fire-fighting law, such as “the automatic fire detection equipment (refluence), the fall of the reduction of the exhaustr of the warehouse storage book, and the fall of the reduction of the exhaustr of the fire,” and notified the instant corrective order. On July 22, 2016, the head of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries notified Defendant B of the period for submitting his opinion on the results of the instant special inspection (from July 25, 2016 to August 4, 2016) and the period for implementing the instant corrective order (from August 8, 2016 to August 27, 2016).

B. Defendant A’s penal interest was substantially managed by Defendant B’s farming association corporation

On September 22, 2016, after Defendant A assumed office as the representative director of Defendant B’s agricultural partnership, the J prepared a statement of the names of the Defendants, stating that Defendant A failed to complete correction, such as “the reduction of the reduction of the warehouse book, the fall of the reduction of the reduction of the heat, and the fall of the reduction of the fire-fighting exhaustr,” among the contents of the instant corrective order.

(c)

As a result of an on-site investigation conducted on December 6, 2016, which was after Defendant A assumed office as the representative director of Defendant B’s farming association corporation, the head of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries reduced the warehouse book among the contents of the instant corrective order.

arrow