The case holding that in the case where a Chinese restaurant operator did not clean the flammable oil wastes, etc. around the kitchen kitchen and the rupture, and thus damaged the building by fire, the responsibility for the crime of realizing the building is recognized in the case where the fluence remaining in the rupture had been destroyed through the rupture.

The case holding that the Chinese restaurant's principal agent is liable for the negligence that did not take measures such as cleaning foreign substances easily attached to the kitchen, such as oil wastes, etc. around the kitchen, and after cooking, on the ground that it is well known that a fire may occur with the fluoring of oil sludge, etc., which were laid around the kitchen and fluor around the kitchen, and on the ground that there was a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of a fire in advance by taking safety measures such as completely extinguishing the fluor, divinging gas valves, etc., despite the fact that there was a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of a fire by neglecting this duty of care, and by failing to take measures such as checking whether the fluor, etc. were not moved into the fluor, etc. after cooking, if the fluor remaining in the fluor was attached to the fluoring oil sludge, and if the fluor listed in the fluoring hole was spreaded to the entire building through the connection of the plastic hole.

Article 170(1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Gambling wells

Attorney Kim Byung-chul

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of seven million won.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period calculated by converting 40,000 won into one day: Provided, That the fractional amount shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who is operating a Chinese restaurant in the name of "dou" in the underground commercial building located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, 667-21, and works as a kitchen;

On December 21, 202: (a) around 20:20, the victim’s 6th head office of the above 20th office knew that, if he neglected to handle erode, fire may occur with oil fluor around the kitchen 80, and so, he/she shall take safety measures such as completely extinguishing erode and diving gas valves, thereby preventing the occurrence of fire in advance; (b) although he/she has a duty of care to care in care, he/she shall not take measures such as cleaning of oil fluor around the ordinary erode and fluort oil wastes from the front 6th office; and (c) by failure to take measures such as sufficiently confirming that fluore weather remains in the front 6th office of the victim’s 7th convenience building; (d) damage from the front 6th office of the victim’s erode and damage from the front 6th office of the victim’s erode, which was operated by the victim’s fluor-2 inside the same building with the front fluor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the allocation of a witness, each legal statement of the distribution of the witness, the well-being of the credit, the name of the stuff of a witness, and the name of the depth of the

1. Entry of each statement of the prosecutor's office and police suspect interrogation protocol on the accused;

1. Statement of the prosecutorial statement concerning the allocation;

1. Statement of each police statement on the Defendant, Park Jong-young, Park Jong-young, Park Jong-young, male and American, lebane, lebalk, lebite, normal iron, libial, Kim Young-kak, Southern-young, Southern Twit-kak, Credit Guarantee, Park Young-kak, Allocation, Sover-kak, Sover-kak and Sover-kak,

1. Each letter of profit-making, lectures, end-time, and current term;

1. Report on the occurrence of a fire case and the register of automobiles;

1. Results of appraisal, comprehensive report on fire occurrence, fire field map, and photograph;

1. Each report on investigation filed in the investigation records (No. 55,121 pages);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts: Articles 170 (1) and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Attraction of a workhouse: Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

The Defendant asserts that, at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, the fire was not caused by the Defendant’s business establishment, and that the fire that occurred outside of the Defendant’s business establishment would have an impact on the Defendant’s business establishment. However, the first discovery of the fire was witnessed that the fire was impreded up to the top of the third floor of the building at the location of the Defendant’s business establishment, and the connection was connected only to the Defendant’s business establishment located under the above building, and the Defendant’s shape was used more than 10 years prior to the operation of the said business establishment, and there was no room for cleaning the inside of the smoke. If the fire occurred from the outside of the above can not be seen as the Defendant’s assertion, it is difficult to view that the lower part of the fire did not fall first into the end of the building at the location of the third floor where the fire occurred, making it difficult to see the Defendant’s external wind, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation that it was difficult to see the Defendant’s business establishment that was close to the point of the fire.

Judges Yoon Young-soo