The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the representative of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government Management Body and the person serving as fire safety controller.

A person related to a specific fire-fighting object, the total floor area of which is 2,00 square meters or less, installed in the place of business of publicly-used businesses, such as singing rooms, shall conduct a comprehensive precise inspection on fire-fighting systems, etc. installed in such objects at least once a year until the month in which

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not conduct a comprehensive safety inspection of fire-fighting systems until February 28, 2015, which is the last day of the month in which the approval date for use of a building is included, with respect to C shopping districts on the first floor of the building.

2. According to Article 25 of the Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems and Article 18 and attached Table 1 of the Enforcement Rule thereof, a comprehensive precise inspection provides that “at least once a year shall be conducted by the end of the month to which the date of approval for use of a building belongs.” According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant was subject to a comprehensive precise inspection on May 10, 2014 when he was investigated by the police by February 28, 2014, on the ground that the Defendant did not conduct a comprehensive precise inspection by February 28, 2014, which is the last day of the month to which the date of approval for use of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building belongs, and the Defendant was subject to a comprehensive precise inspection by the prosecutor on June 13, 2014, but the Defendant fell under the category of the comprehensive precise inspection due to singing inside the commercial building after the enforcement of the amended Act.”

Defendant

In addition, the defense counsel asserts that the defendant performed his/her duty unless he/she underwent a comprehensive precise inspection on May 10, 2014, and the prosecutor merely takes follow-up measures of the fire safety inspection that should have been conducted until February 28, 2014.