beta
Text
The judgment below
Act on Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems due to Violation of the duty to take necessary measures.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal on the violation of the former Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (amended by Act No. 12207, Jan. 7, 2014; hereinafter “Fire-Fighting Systems Act”).
A. 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: “The Defendant, a fire safety controller of the instant building in the original judgment, was aware of the fact that the Defendant, a co-owner F, G, and I, a person related to the instant singing shop in the instant judgment, knew of the closure or blocking, and did not request the head of the fire headquarters or the chief of the fire station to take necessary measures, such as removal or repair of the emergency exit on the said F, G, and I, and not notifying the head of the fire station of such fact, although the Defendant, a person related to the instant sing shop in the instant judgment, was aware of the fact that the sing shop in the instant judgment, F, G, and I was a fire-fighting system, etc.
Article 20(8) of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act provides that “When a fire-fighting system escape facility, fire-fighting facility, fire-fighting partition, etc. is found to be in violation of statutes to protect human life and property, a fire-fighting safety manager shall, without delay, request persons related to the objects of fire-fighting to take necessary measures, such as repair, relocation, removal, or repair of the objects of fire-fighting, and, if the interested parties fail to correct, notify the head of a fire-fighting headquarters or the head of a fire station of such fact.” Article 50(8) of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act provides that “the fire-fighting safety controller
B. Of this part of the facts charged, we first examine the violation of the obligation to take necessary measures, and first examine the “emergencys adjacent to 25 pages”.
The lower court determined that “25 emergency exit next to the 25th emergency exit” is the object of fire safety management stipulated by fire-fighting system laws and regulations.