[1] The case holding that the Korea Gas Technology Corporation's employees are negligent in a gas explosion accident which occurred during the process of gas leakage inspection under a contract from the Korea Gas Corporation

[2] The validity of the judgment where the number of days of detention pending trial is included in the statutory calculation is less than the number of days to be included in court

[1] The case holding that the Korea Gas Technology Corporation's employees are negligent in gas explosion accidents which occurred during the process of gas leakage inspection under a contract from the Korea Gas Corporation

[2] In case where the number of days of pre-trial detention is calculated by court in accordance with Article 482 of the Criminal Procedure Act, even if the appellate court sentenced the judgment to include the number of days which are less than the number of days to be calculated by court, it is not a legally meaningful measure, and this does not mean that the inclusion in court is excluded by law, so the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed

[1] Article 268 of the former Criminal Code (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995) / [2] Article 482 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 57 of the Criminal Code

[2] Supreme Court Decision 63Do95 decided May 15, 1963 (No. 11-1, 40), Supreme Court Decision 68Do1010 decided September 5, 1968 (No. 16-3, 1972), Supreme Court Decision 72Do528 decided May 23, 1972, 94Do280 decided February 28, 195 (Gong195Sang, 1518)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorneys Shin Sung-chul et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 95No3280 delivered on August 29, 1995

All appeals are dismissed. 140 days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence against the Defendants.

1. Determination on Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal

Examining the evidence admitted by the court of first instance by the court below after comparing it with the records, the fact-finding by the court of first instance is justified, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of litigation.

In addition, if the facts are duly determined by the court below, the first official office of the Korea Gas Corporation (hereinafter "the above official office") ordered the gas leakage inspection of this case to the Seoul metropolitan business office of the Korea Gas Corporation, the gas technology industry corporation and its Enforcement Decree, and the regulations on safety of the Korea Gas Corporation, in light of the purport of each relevant provision, Defendant 1, as the director of the above official office, has a duty of care to thoroughly manage and supervise whether the above work is properly and safely conducted by attending the construction supervisor or safety manager, and the operation of valves such as opening, closing, and closing of valves also has a duty of care to make a regular operator capable of operating the valves. Second, the above official office plans and implementation of the above official office, and the Seoul branch office of the above official office (the above official office) was in cooperation with the above official office, and therefore, the above official office's order to place the supervisor and safety supervisor for the above work was just and there is no error in the law as to the overall manager's duty of inspection of the above case.

2. Determination on Defendant 2 and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal (the grounds of supplementary appeal stated in the supplemental appellate brief not timely filed are to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief)

A. As to the first ground for appeal

If the evidence of the first instance court maintained by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, the fact-finding by the court below is just and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of law like the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, since Defendant 2, the director of the central control office of the Korea Gas Corporation, was in the situation where he could know that gas leakage was being done during the gas leakage inspection of the instant case in the Asia-Pacific Gas Supply Base, the court below found the specific contents of the gas leakage inspection work of the instant case and its work are being conducted safely in the best way taking into account that the fact that the gas leakage is underground base and the risk of explosion continues to occur. In particular, since the gas leakage warning continues until 14:52 on the date of the accident, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment below as to the instant accident. The judgment below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the instant accident.

B. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Article 482 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in case where the number of days of detention pending trial is calculated by court, even if the court below sentenced the judgment to include the number of days which are less than the number of days to be calculated by court, this is nothing more than a legally meaningful measure, and this does not mean that the court below's judgment cannot be reversed solely for the above reasons. There is no reason to issue this issue.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and some of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence against the Defendants, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the court below or the court of first instance.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)