Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On March 4, 2017, the defendant around 10:45, and around 10:45, the victim D management E Co., Ltd. located in C had melting work to repair press machines installed therein.

In such cases, the contact worker has a duty of care to prevent fire in advance by thoroughly checking whether there is any fluorous substance in the vicinity, and thoroughly installing devices to prevent the fluoring fire in a place that does not mean the fluor due to the fluoring work, so that the fire does not occur.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not take proper measures to prevent the scattering of flames including the installation of asbestos, and carried out melting work as it is, by occupational negligence, destroyed a factory building, factory machinery, etc. equivalent to approximately KRW 33,038,000 of the market price by moving the spunch fire to drinking spun installed on the wall of the Defendant during melting work.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F or D;

1. On-site photographs;

1. A report on the results of field identification;

1. A fire site survey report;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. The application of Acts and subordinate statutes, reporting on the confirmation of statements at the factory site of a damaged factory against an accused person's disease;

1. Relevant Article 171 of the Criminal Act, Articles 170 (1) and 170 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for criminal facts;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is against the Defendant’s wrong recognition of his fault, and the Defendant appears to have been subjected to a claim for reimbursement from M branch damage insurance company due to the instant crime, thereby recovering some damage, and the primary offender is determined by comprehensively taking into account the various circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the record, including the following: (a) the Defendant appears to have been subject to a claim for reimbursement from M branch damage insurance company; and (b) the Defendant