All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding or legal principles: (a) On July 3, 2015, when the fire-fighting commander issued a mid-term fire-fighting assistant, the first written order to take measures for self-inspection (hereinafter “instant order to take measures”) and the second written order to take measures for violation of the fire-fighting-related statutes, the second written order to take measures is indicated as “the sectional owner” as “the owner A” and the subject column also is indicated as “the owner A.

However, the merchants, who are members of the Defendant B Commercial Building Management Association (hereinafter “Defendant Operation Association”), are most lessees. Defendant A is merely a lessee, and the above order of measures based on the premise that the Defendants are divided owners is null and void. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the validity of such order.

② The instant order to take measures is a fire extinguishing machine, fire extinguishing equipment, alarm facility, escape facility, etc., and the location of each unit is designated by each unit, and thus, the Defendants may not serve as a lessee. However, the Defendants requested the relevant business entity to make an estimate on July 4, 2015, and the same year.

7.9.11

7. Until October 21, 201, the owner made every effort to grasp and contact the contact address of the owner and ask whether to permit the construction, etc., and on October 22, 2015, the second inspection work was conducted on October 26, 201, making every effort to complete the inspection work, etc.

Therefore, it does not constitute the elements to constitute a crime of violating the Fire-Fighting Systems Act, since the law was changed by Act No. 13062, Jan. 20, 2015 to the Act on Fire Prevention and Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (amended by Act No. 13062, Jan. 2015) (hereinafter “Fire-Fighting Systems Act”) for justifiable grounds” under Article 48-2 subparag. 1 of the former Act.

B. The Defendants did not have intention, and there was no possibility of expectation in light of the above circumstances.

I would like to say.

B. The court below rendered unfair sentencing.