Water supply and illegal water supply;

Even if a legitimate procedure is not followed, as long as it is actually a facility that supplies drinking water necessary for public life, it is reasonable to see that it is a water supply system when it illegally damages the facilities and causes water to flow out by making it impossible.

Article 195 of the Criminal Act

Prosecutor

Busan District Court and Daegu High Court of the second instance

We reverse the original judgment.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months.

Provided, That the execution of a sentence shall be suspended for one year;

The grounds of appeal by the chief public prosecutor of the Daegu High Public Prosecutor's Office recognized the entire facts of the charges as stated in the indictment, but 1. The frequency of this case is nothing more than the fixed procedure and it can be collected as a viewing. The number of this case can not be determined by the public because it lacks objective equipment for public drinking, and it can not be seen that the public drinking water can not be supplied as an element of the crime of water non-use, because it is impossible for the public to find that the public to use it as an underground facility. The court below found that the public prosecutor's ground of appeal by the witness of the Daegu High Public Prosecutor's Office found the facts that the water was supplied to the public drinking water by the testimony of the Busan City Water and the drainage plant, which is the first reason for the inspection, was installed at the same time and decided that the public drinking water was not installed at the same time and that the public drinking water was not installed at the same time, and that the existing court's decision of the court below that the public drinking water can not be found to be used for the purpose of protecting the public sanitation of the existing drinking water.

The court below acknowledged the facts charged but the water supply system could not be treated as a crime of water supply failure even if it was damaged or other means because the water supply system did not take the procedure. However, even if it could not take the procedure, it is reasonable to regard it as a water supply failure if it illegally damaged the facility and caused water supply by using it as a facility for public life. Thus, since the judgment of the court below with the opposing opinion is erroneous in the interpretation of the law, the court below should not dismiss it in this point, and it is reasonable to see that the court below's reasoning is sufficient in the judgment of the court below and the first instance court's determination based on the evidence examined by the court below 3 as a result of the pleading, so it is identical to the facts of the court below's judgment, so evidence relation can be accepted, and evidence relation can be acknowledged within the scope of 9th sentence of the court below's 9th sentence, which corresponds to the defendant's 1 and second instance court's 9th sentence of the Criminal Procedure Act's 9th sentence of the same Act, which conforms to the court's 9th sentence of the same Act.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice), the deputy judge of Kim Sejong-won Kim Jong-soo, Justice Kim pair-wing