2012 Highest 4339 A. Occupational failure, etc.

(b) Injury by occupational negligence;

(c) Violation of the Installation, Maintenance and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act;

1.(a)(b) : Help 00, and amusement business;

Residential Busan Jin-gu 0 Dong

【Gyeongnam Sea-gun 00

2.(a) .b. Anchors, amusement businesses;

Sungwon-si, Sungwon-si, 00 Dong

Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu ○○ Dong in the place of registration

3.(a)(c) ○○, and amusement business;

residential Ulsan-gu 00 dong-gu

○○ Myeon in the place of registration

4. A.b. Kim Jong-han and workers engaged in entertainment business;

Housing Changwon-si Masanpo-dong 00

1. 5. 5. 5

5.(a) .b. Persons engaged in ○ or amusement business;

Residential Busan Jin-gu 0 Dong

Reference domicile Kim Sea-si Odong

6. ○○ or an employee of an amusement business.

Residence Kim-si ○○ Dong

Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-nam, Gyeong-gun ○

Eassort (prosecutions) and prosecutorials (Trial)

Law Firm International (for the purpose of Defendant Cho-○, Park ○, the largest ○○, Kim ○, and Lee ○)

Attorney Yellow Jin-hun, dedicated to exclusive crimes, Lee Jin-ju

November 28, 2012

1. Defendant ○○○, Ga-○, and maximum ○○ shall be punished by imprisonment for four years, by imprisonment for two years, by imprisonment without prison labor for two years, by imprisonment without prison labor for two years and six months, by imprisonment for two years and six months, and by imprisonment for eight months, respectively.

2. However, the execution of each of the above punishments shall be suspended for a period of four years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, and for a period of two years from the date when this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

Defendant ○○○ and Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○ made an investment of KRW 25,00 from around July 2, 200 to KRW 25,00,00 each, and operated “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○”, which is an entertainment tavern located on the third floor of the building located in Busan Seo-gu, Busan, and Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○○ was a person who worked as a president of the instant singing place from around July 2009 to June 201, Defendant ○○○○○○○○○○ was an employee of the said singing○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and Defendant 1’s 6% of the total floor space of the said ○○○○○○○○○.

1. An interested person of a specific fire-fighting object in violation of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (owner, manager, possessor, and occupant) shall install, maintain, and manage fire-fighting systems, etc. to be installed in consideration of the size, use, accommodation number, etc. of the specific fire-fighting object in accordance with the fire safety standards, and shall not close, lock, cut, or shut off, etc. which may interfere with the function and performance of the fire-fighting systems, etc. When maintaining and managing the fire-fighting systems, he/she shall not conduct any act such as closing, lock, or shut down. Defendant Parkb○, ○, and ○○○, both of which are the managers and occupants of the above singing shop, who is a specific fire-fighting object, and even if he/she received permission to change the use of the above singing shop as an entertainment drinking house business on June 22, 2009, he/she installed three emergency exits installed in front of the entrance of the above singing shop, and installed an emergency string, locking, or shut off, etc.

2. Violation of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act by Defendant Park 00, MaximumO or OO.

On June 201, the Defendants conspired to employ a man-made service provider at the instant singing shop and install a new door door at the entrance of an emergency exit right next to the entrance, thereby creating an emergency exit display, etc. as a room between the corridor and the emergency exit. The Defendants closed and block emergency exit, such as fire-fighting systems, by altering it into a drinking warehouse where alcoholic beverages, leaders, etc. are loaded.

3. The public-use establishments under the Special Act on the Safety Management of Publicly Used Establishments, Defendant Park 00, MaoO, Mao-O00, Kim, and Mao-ju's occupational death and injury caused by occupational negligence, are those with a view to falling short of capacity to determine the situation and cope with by fire, etc. under the influence of alcohol, and as it is difficult for customers to promptly evacuate in a case where poisonous gas is generated, it is difficult to promptly evacuate.

Defendant Park ○○, ○○○, and ○○○○, as a joint proprietor of the instant singing shop, is in the position of operating a publicly-used establishment. ① Inspection of electric facilities, etc. on the said singing shop in advance to prevent the occurrence of fire caused by electricity; ② Operation of guidance lights, emergency lights, portable rain lights, and evacuation equipment to properly evacuate in accordance with the provisions of the Special Act on the Safety Control of Publicly Used Establishments, and management them to ensure that they can be properly installed and maintained their functions; ③ Fire-Fighting doors, emergency exits, and emergency exits to ensure that they can be properly installed and maintained their functions; ④ Management of emergency bells, emergency broadcasting equipment, alarm devices, and independent alarm devices to promptly inform the public of the occurrence of fire and other emergency measures to ensure that they can be properly installed and maintained their functions; ⑤ Management of emergency equipment, such as fire and other emergency equipment, to educate their employees in advance and properly cope with them; and ⑤ Prevention of fire and other employees in advance, to ensure that they can be promptly and appropriately informed of the fire and other emergency equipment, such as fire evacuation equipment, etc.

There is a duty of care to be protected from the duty of care.

Defendant Kim○, who is the vice head of the above singing shop, and Defendant Lee○, an employee, have a duty of care to prevent the expansion of human life damage by sounding fire alarms on hand, informing customers of the fact that a fire alarm has occurred rapidly, and immediately guiding customers by immediately guiding them by means of emergency exit and entrance, etc. in order to prevent the spread of fire caused by fire-fighting activities, etc., especially in order to prevent the expansion of human life and property damage.

그럼에도 불구하고 피고인 박○○, 피고인 최○○, 피고인 조○○은 ① 본건 화재가 발생하기 약 6개월 전인 2011.11.7. 같은 건물 2층에 있는 '○노래주점'에서 전기적 원인으로 추정되는 화재가 발생하여 70,000,000원 상당의 재산피해가 있었다는 사실을 잘 알고 있었고, 특히 본건 화재 발생 전에 위 노래주점에서 누전 · 과부하 · 단락 겸용 차단기가 수회에 걸쳐 작동되어 전기가 들어오지 않은 사실이 있으므로, 이러한 경우에는 위 차단기의 작동원인을 조사하고 위 노래주점 내에 연결되어 있는 전선의 절연체가 손상되었는지를 점검하여 전기설비 상의 문제가 있는지 여부를 확인하여야 할 의무가 있음에도 불구하고 이를 게을리 한 채 위 노래주점 내에 연결되어 있는 전선의 절연체가 손상되었는지 여부를 점검하지 않아 전기설비 상의 위험성을 크게 하였고1), ② 화재가 발생할 경우 손님들을 신속하게 피난하도록 유도하는 피난설비인 휴대용비상조명등을 각 방마다 설치하고 정상적으로 작동하도록 유지, 관리하여야 함에도 불구하고, 26개 방 중 10개 방에만 휴대용비상조명등이 설치되어 있고, 그 중 5개는 건전지가 없어 전원이 들어오지 않는 상태로 방치하였으며, ③ 25번 방 옆 비상구에 쇼파, 테이블, 노래방기기, 모니터 등을 설치하여 방으로 개조하고, 외부로 통하는 비상구 문을 케이블 끈으로 묶어 고정시켜 내·외부에서 개방하지 못하게 폐쇄하며, 비상구 문 바로 옆에 있던 접이식 비상사다리를 해체하여 철거하고, 출입문 옆에 있는 비상구 복도 입구에 여닫이문을 새로 설치하는 방법으로 복도와 비상구 문 사이의 공간을 방으로 만들어 비상구 표시등이 보이지 않게 하고, 그 공간에 주류박스, 생맥주통 등 각종 물품 등을 적재 보관하는 술 창고로 개조하여 비상구를 폐쇄함으로써 피해자들로 하여금 비상구로 대피할 수 없도록 하고, ④ 각 방에는 방음시설이 설치되어 있어 방 외부의 상황을 인지하기 어려우므로 화재 발생시에는 경보설비인 화재감지기가 연기·열 등을 자동으로 감지하여 정상적으로 비상경보가 울릴 수 있도록 유지, 관리하여야 하고, 각 방 및 복도에 설치되어 있는 수동 화재경보기도 수시로 점검하여 정상적으로 작동되도록 하여야 함에도 불구하고, 화재가 발생하였을 때 화재감지기가 이를 자동으로 감지하지 못하여 비상경보가 제대로 울리지 않도록 관리를 게을리 하고, 수동 화재경보기도 제대로 작동하도록 점검하지 않았을 뿐 아니라, 평소에 술에 취한 손님들이 비상벨을 오작동시켜 각 방에 비상벨이 울리게 되면 영업에 방해를 받는다는 이유로 카운터 오른쪽에 설치되어 있는 '영상음향차단장치(일명 비상벨 수신기)'의 '복구 정지(리셋기능)' 버튼의 빈틈에 수시로 이쑤시개를 꽂아두어 비상벨 경보가 작동하지 않도록 하고, ⑤ 종업원들에게 소화, 통보, 피난 등의 훈련과 방안에 있는 손님들에게 신속하게 비상구를 안내하는 등 대피요령, 휴대용조명등 사용방법, 비상벨 위치 및 사용방법 등 소방안전관리에 필요한 교육을 실시하여 위급상황에 신속하고 적절하게 대처할 수 있도록 준비하여야 하여야 함에도 불구하고, 피고인 김○, 피고인 이○을 비롯한 종업원들에게 위 교육을 전혀 시키지 않은 업무상 과실이 있고, 피고인 김○은 위 노래주점 남자 화장실에 있다가 나왔을 때 화재가 발생하였다는 것을 알게 되었는데, 당시는 화재로 인한 화염이 번지기 전으로 연기만 퍼져 있는 화재발생 초기 상태였으므로 부점장으로서 다른 종업원들과 함께 또는 다른 종업원들에게 지시하여 손님들에게 화재사실을 즉시 알리고 대피조치를 취하거나 비상벨 작동 등의 조치를 취하여야 함에도 불구하고 그 즉시 혼자 주점 출입구를 빠져나와 계단을 통해 1층으로 도주하여 구호조치를 회피한 업무상 과실이 있고, 피고인 이○은 최초 발화한 24번방 앞에 있는 주방과 25번방을 오가며 써빙을 하다.가, 종업원 박○○이 24번방에서 발생한 화재를 진압하기 위해 방문을 열고 소화기로 진화를 시도하고 있었고, 유독가스가 복도 전체로 확산되고 있는 상황을 목격하여 화재 발생 사실을 알고 있었음에도 계속하여 25번방의 손님들에게 써빙을 하였고, 손님들이 "이상한 냄새가 나지 않냐"는 물음에도 "괜찮습니다"라고 답하여 손님들을 안심시키고 있다가, 유독가스가 복도로 퍼지고 화재가 더욱 확산되자 비로소 단지 위 25번방의 문을 열고 입구 쪽 손님 1~2명만 들을 수 있는 작은 소리로 "나가셔야 합니다. 나오세 요"라는 말을 하여 화재 발생사실을 제대로 알리지 않았고, 복도에는 유독가스가 가득 차있어 시야확보가 되지 않는 상태였기 때문에 손님들이 제대로 대피하도록 출입구 방향을 알려주어야 함에도 불구하고, 그 즉시 자신만 출입구 방향으로 뛰어 대피하여 25번방의 손님 12명에게 출입구 방향을 알려주지 않고 그대로 방치한 업무상 과실이 있다.

Ultimately, the above occupational negligence of Defendant Park 00, MaO, MaO0, KimO, and the above occupational negligence were concurrent, and around 20:50 on May 5, 2012, Defendant 20: “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ building located on the upper part of the ○○○○○○○-○○○○○ building located in Busan-dong, Busan-dong,” the number of days for treatment of the victim, as shown in the attached Table 24, caused the injury of the victim to the victim, including the injury of the victim to the total number of days for treatment of the victim (the number of days for treatment).

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Legal statement of the witness ○○○;

1. Each legal statement made by a witness: 00, 00, 00, and ○○○○○;

1. Statements made by witnesses Kim○-○ in the second trial records;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor of the prosecution with respect to the order of library and workplace;

1. Each protocol of statement by the police on the police, ○○, G○○, G○○, ○○, Ha○○, Kim○, ○○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, ○○, and ○○○;

1. Report on the occurrence of each case of change, suggestion for direction, request for autopsy, report on the results of autopsy, written request for autopsy, written request for autopsy, and written request for autopsy and appraisal of each body;

1. The current status of the fire-fighting equipment of ○○○○○○○○ store, the current status of the ○○○○○ store fire-fighting facility inspection, the joint identification with the State of ○○○○○○○ store fire-fighting (II), the current status of emergency exit within the ○○○○○○ store shop, the request for appraisal (the Disaster Prevention and Research Institute);

1. Application of CCTV-related Acts and subordinate statutes to each ○○○ Employment Point;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant Gab○○ and ○○○○: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 48 and 9(3) of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a)

(b) Defendant Cho ○○: Articles 268 and 30 of each Criminal Act, Articles 48 and 9(3) of the Act on the Prevention and Management of Fire-Fighting Systems, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of blocking the closure of fire-fighting systems)

C. Defendant Kim-○ and Lee Dong-○: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Code

(d) Defendant ○○○: Articles 48 and 9(3) of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act, Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendant Cho-○, Park ○, ○○, Ma○, and Ma○: Defendant KimO who has chosen to imprisonment, and Lee O: Selection of each imprisonment without prison labor.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant Cho 00, ParkO, Maximum00: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50(1)2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Korea

Defendant ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○○○: (a) the reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act were to show that the Defendants were unable to engage in the crime; (b) if the Defendants were to wear a door to use the passage connected to outdoor stairs as a liquor warehouse; and (c) if the Defendants did not engage in an act to prevent the emergency passage, the portable emergency lighting, etc. would have been installed at an early stage; (d) if the employees would have been able to immediately work and promptly, they would have been able to escape from the seriousness of the situation; and (e) if they were to have been able to achieve one of the instant circumstances, they would have been able to avoid or significantly reduce damage to the lives or bodies of victims, by taking into account the circumstances of the instant accident, it would be difficult to say that the Defendants would not have been able to have been able to take account of the fact that the Defendants would not have been able to take advantage of the fact that the Defendants would have been able to take advantage of their respective safety and health conditions.

Judges Kim Gin-ok

1) On the part of the voluntary replacement of the exhaustr, the breach of occupational duty is deemed to have been breached, but the risks of the exhaustr on the electrical equipment are found to have been found.

In addition, it is difficult to readily conclude that the fire of this case was the direct cause of the fire of this case, and this part of the facts charged is the defendant and defense counsel.

Recognizing the argument, it will be excluded from the content of the breach of duty of care in the facts charged.