2015Jama3688A. Injury by occupational negligence

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

1.(a) A

2.(a) B

3.(a)(b) C

2. D Co., Ltd.

5.2. E Co., Ltd.

Park Jong-young (prosecution), final warning (public trial)

Attorney F

Law Firm G.

Attorney H, I (for Defendant A, B, and D Company)

J Law Firm

Attorney K in charge (for Defendant C and E Company)

August 11, 2017

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Facts charged;

【Basic Facts】

(a) The current status and management of LA buildings;

L Building(hereinafter referred to as "the main building") is a complex building with the size of 146,071,39 square meters of total floor area of 146,071,39 meters and the size of 7 stories underground and 5 stories underground. The building of this case was divided into shopping mall and N, and the movie theater was in progress during the operation of the movie theater from the 5th to the 7th above ground, the first to the 4th above ground of the same ground. And the underground floor of the building was in operation of L from the 3rd above ground without distinction between shopping mall and N, and the first to the second above ground. In addition, the underground floor of the building was one part without separation between shopping mall and N, and the underground floor was operated by Q Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "S."), and it was in operation of the underground building from the 3rd to the 3rd below the 5th underground floor to the 3rd below the 3rd underground floor.

The second underground floor of this building acquired ownership in E, and the parking lot of the third underground floor, the disaster prevention room of the first floor, and the outside loading and unloading room of the third underground floor are managed in E, and the separate fire-fighting facilities and fire-fighting facilities have been installed and operated in E, and E entered into a facility management service contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "D") on July 29, 2013 and the contract period extended by June 30, 2014, and entrusted the maintenance and management of the facilities operated by the above E to D.

(b) Occurrence of a fire;

On May 26, 2014, around 09:00, the construction site of the first floor Q. 3 and 4th of the underground floor of the building was melting urban gas pipes through an Acrop in the vicinity of Ecrop, whereas the melting flames were stuck into urban gas pipelines, and the gas pipelines flow out into urban gas pipelines, and the gas pipelines flow out into the ecrop sphers of gas pipes, and the chemical is spreading into the eculp of the ceiling where the flames are opened, and at the same time, eculations were burned down into the eculp of the first floor, and at the same time, the eculic toxicity and heat containing a fatal hazardous substance, such as an eculine, was turned out in large quantities. On the ground that the fire-fighting facilities of the first floor of the underground floors have not been operated at all, the entire Ecrop and the entire 20th basement area was spreaded through the ecrop.

【Criminal Facts】

Defendant A is a fire safety controller who takes charge of duties necessary for the maintenance, repair, fire safety control, etc. of this case under the direction of the head of the facility team A while working as an employee of D, a general manager of building, from January 2009 to July 2014, who takes charge of duties including fire-fighting system management of this case. Defendant B is a fire safety controller who takes charge of duties such as the maintenance, repair, and fire safety control of this case’s fire-fighting systems, etc. under the direction of the head of the facility team A, and Defendant C is a person who takes charge of duties of managing and supervising an entrusted company of facility management by taking overall charge of all support duties, etc. other than E’

A. Defendant A and Defendant B

The Defendants, as the head of the facility team and fire safety controller in charge of the fire-fighting system management of this case, installed a fire reduction device in the above E store. In each case, the Defendants sent the fire reduction signal to the fire prevention room in the first floor of the building, which is separately installed on the ground of this case, to the fire receiver in the disaster prevention room, and the above fire receptioner had the function of automatically operating the disaster prevention facilities, such as screen exhausters, emergency guidance broadcasting, warning sound, etc., by informing the Defendants at any location within the store immediately after the fire reduction signal was received.

In such a case, the Defendants, who are fire-related parties, have a duty of care to maintain the normal operation function of the automatic fire-fighting system for 24 hours, such as making it possible to operate the immediate disaster prevention system at all times in the case of a fire, and making it necessary to convert the fire receiver into the manual due to an inevitable reason, designating a supervisor for 24 hours in order to immediately convert the automatic fire prevention system into the automatic system for immediately responding to the fire.

On the other hand, on August 9, 2013, prior to Q from the first floor of the instant building, the Defendants filed an application to suspend the operation of the fire-fighting equipment to convert Q Q into the operation of the automatic operation of the disaster prevention equipment at the first floor of the instant building on August 9, 2013, and thereafter, the Defendants operated the said fire prevention equipment in such a way as to re-determine the operation of the fire prevention equipment at night (from 18:00 to 09:0 on the following day) by renewal of the application to suspend the operation of the fire prevention equipment at the end of every week until May 26, 2014.

Accordingly, at around 08:40 on May 26, 2014, Defendant B and D’s employees: (a) S, and T, when a fire reduction warning was issued at the fire reception machine, confirmed that the fire prevention linkage device of the fire reception machine was broken off and operated by leaving the disaster prevention room in the state where the fire reception device was called a passive operation; (b) on the same day, they did not convert the fire reception machine again into an automated operation; (c) on the same day, at around 09:00, the fire reception device was not immediately converted into an automatic operation device; and (d) even at the same time, they did not turn the fire reception device out of the disaster prevention room into an automatic operation device; and (d) on the same day, they became aware that the fire reception device was carried out by the automatic operation equipment, which was installed at the latest by converting the fire reception device into the automatic operation equipment into the automatic operation equipment at around 09:08 on the same day.

The aforementioned Defendants’ occupational negligence and Defendant C’s occupational negligence competing with each other, and the Defendants committed acts of closing, blocking, etc., which may interfere with the function and performance of fire-fighting systems, including that U.S. victims of fdcot in the said store suffered injury due to the smoke and inhalement of waste, and that 14 victims suffered injury due to toxic gas, such as the list of crimes in the attached Form.

B. Defendant D Co., Ltd

The Defendant, as an employee of the Defendant, committed the act of closing or blocking fire-fighting systems that could impede the function and performance of the fire-fighting systems as described in paragraph (1).

C. Defendant C

The defendant had a duty of care to guide and supervise the Do-affiliated fire safety controller, who is a fire-fighting management company entrusted with the fire-fighting system management, as the head of this case, as the fire-fighting-related party in this case, as a specific fire-fighting object.

In addition, the defendant, a person involved in fire-fighting, shall not engage in the act of closing or blocking fire-fighting systems that may disturb the function and performance of fire-fighting systems, and in particular, the linkage device for the disaster prevention facilities of the fire receiver shall be kept in an automatic state at all times so that the disaster prevention facilities can be operated immediately in the event of a fire.

From August 9, 2013, as described in paragraph (1), the Defendant had a duty of care to supervise the normal operation function of an automatic fire extinguishing device so that the normal operation function of the automatic fire extinguishing device can be maintained at all times at 24 hours, such as that the Defendant, as a fire safety controller, can guide and supervise the fire extinguishing device, and immediately convert it into an automatic automatic device, by designating the fire safety controller B, etc., as a fire safety controller, he/she had a duty of care to supervise it so that the normal operation function of the automatic fire extinguishing device can be maintained at all times at 24 hours.

Nevertheless, even though the Defendant knew that D’s night work team was only one employee and was unable to operate the above fire receiver at the time of the occurrence of the fire, that is, if he was unable to operate the immediate disaster prevention equipment, he could not operate the fire receiver at the time of the occurrence of the fire. However, as stated in Paragraph (1) due to occupational negligence, the Defendant changed the fire receiver at the time of the above B, etc. into “Automatic” and caused the fire receiver at the time after the occurrence of the fire to be immediately operated after the occurrence of the fire, so that the toxicity of the fire on the first floor of the above building was postponed.

The occupational negligence of the Defendant and the occupational negligence of the Defendant A and B as mentioned in paragraph (1), together with the Defendant’s occupational negligence, and the Defendant suffered injury, such as damage and pulmonal difficulty, etc. caused by the smoke and inhalement of waste in the said store by U.S., as described in the attached list of crimes, and committed such acts as closing and blocking fire-fighting systems that may hinder the function and performance of fire-fighting systems.

D. Defendant E

The Defendant, who is an employee of the Defendant, committed the act of closing, blocking, etc., which may interfere with the function and performance of fire-fighting systems, as described in the above paragraph (3).

2. Determination

A. The defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1) Defendant A, B, and D

A) At the time of the instant case, it does not constitute an act of closing or blocking a fire-fighting system, since it was turned to a temporary manual for the purpose of inspecting the malfunction, as it was turned to a passive manual on the ground that the five functions of the 12 main function of the 12 main function of the 12 main function of the 12 main function of the 12 main function of the 2nd receiver.

B) It is difficult to recognize the causal link between the transition of partial disaster prevention facilities and the occurrence of injury to the victims of the instant case.

2) Defendant C and E

A) Defendant C was unaware of the fact that it was operated by Defendant C by converting the link between the fire receiver and the manual. Even if Defendant C knew of such fact, the violation of Articles 48 and 9(3)1 of the former Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (amended by Act No. 12844, Nov. 19, 2014; hereinafter “Fire-Fighting Systems Act”) is punished for intentional closing or blocking of fire-fighting systems. The prosecutor is held liable on the ground that C was negligent by neglecting the fact that Defendant C was operating the linkage between the fire receiver and the fire receiver, even though Defendant C was aware that it was operated by Defendant C by converting it into the manual. Thus, the crime of violation of the Fire-Fighting Facilities Act against Defendant C and E cannot be established.

B) Defendant C, as a truster of fire-fighting system management, only has general and abstract duties to manage and supervise D employees, such as fire safety controller B, etc., and there is no specific and direct duty of care for fire safety or fire prevention. The accumulation time of fire-fighting devices and the time required to prevent heat and smoke by operating fire-fighting stacks up to the floor as confirmed through on-site inspection results, etc. of this court is 1 minute 58 seconds. In light of the speed of poisonous gas inflows, even if a fire receiver was operated automatically at the time of the instant case, even if the fire receiver was operated automatically at the time of the instant case, there was no causation that the victims of the instant accident occurred due to late operation of the fire-fighting system linked to the fire receiver.

B. Determination

1) Whether an act of closing or blocking fire-fighting systems is recognized

A) Defendant A, B, and D

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is recognized that Defendant A applied for the suspension of the operation of the main fire-fighting system until May 26, 2014, and that Defendant A applied for the suspension of the operation of the main fire-fighting system until August 26, 2014, and that Defendant A applied for the suspension of the operation of the main fire-fighting system in the integrated management system of E from August 9, 2013 to “combined building for the inspection of the parts of the fire-fighting system on the side of the building and the malfunction of space unsold in lots, etc.” The fact that Defendant A applied for the suspension of the operation of the main fire-fighting system in the integrated management system of E, and that Defendant A, B, and V applied for the suspension of the operation of the main fire-fighting system by not only during night work but also during night work, D employees, such as Defendant A, B, and V, automatically laid the fire receiver into the manual of fire response, and directly checked whether the chemical was actually generated in E sales.

However, the conviction in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to prove that the defendant A, B, and D committed the act of closing or blocking the fire receiver by converting the function of the fire receiver into the manual, thereby hindering the function of the fire receiver, and there is no obvious evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

(1) According to the records of the above receiver on May 26, 2014 following the prosecution of this case: (a) around 09:01:44, the prosecutor: (b) operated the automatic operation system of the fire receiver at around 09:01:4 in the condition of suspending the interconnection function of the lowerer, earth level, alarm level, emergency broadcasting, and fire exhausters; (c) at around 09:23:35, where approximately 23 minutes have elapsed since the fire occurred, the prosecutor confirmed that the status of the fire was successively cancelled, and (d) based on the records of the event of the receiver at around 08:59:56, the prosecutor submitted the following findings: BF 2F P/V/S-1 (on the ground of the second floor 1 Sclblveblblblblf clf clf clf clf clf clf clf clf clf cl.).

(2) 그런데 이 사건 공소장에 기재된 바와 같이 이 사건 건물의 실제 화재발생시간은 09:00경이며, 이 사건 건물의 시설관리회사인 W 등에 대한 의정부지방법원 고양 지원 2014고단1934, 의정부지방법원 2015노148 업무상과실치사 등 사건(이하 위 사건 판결문을 '관련 사건 판결문'이라 한다)에서는 이 사건 건물 지하 1층 연기감지기에서 09:00:17경 화재가 감지된 것으로 확인되는 점, 이 법원의 2016. 6. 8.자 현장검증조서에 의하면 위 수신기(화재 이후 변경 없이 유지되었다)의 설정시각은 실제 시간보다 약 28분 빠르게 설정되었던 점 등에 비추어 보면 이 사건 당시 위 수신기의 설정시각은 위 피고인들의 주장과 같이 실제 시간보다 약 16분 상당 빨랐던 것으로 판단된다.

(3) In light of the above log records and the records of this event, it is reasonable to view that the above defendants operated the fire reduction warning on the second basement level 08:45:44 (No. 09:01:44 on the log records) (No. 09:01:44 on the log records), the earth level, the earth level, the alarm level, the emergency broadcast, and the fire exhausters' interconnection function as a manual, but operated at around 09:07:35 (No. 09:23:35 on the log records) at around 09:07:35 (No. 09:23:35 on the log records).

(4) However, according to the above logs records, the above defendants were additionally accumulated ① 08:46:54 (rogate records 09:02:54) and ② 08:47:56 (rogate records 09:03:56) (rogate records 09:03:56). According to the above logs records, the above defendants repeated operation of the pressing function of the receiver linkage 08:43:56 (rogate records 09:03:56) on the 2nd underground floor 08:46:56 (rogate records 09:02:56) and were reduced again to recover from 08:47:30 (rogate records 09:03:30). However, according to the above log records, the above defendants were found not to have operated the CCTV normally prior to the occurrence of a fire.

B) Defendant C and E

As seen earlier, insofar as it is difficult to recognize that Defendant A, B, and D performed the act of closing or blocking a fire receiver’s function by converting the function of the fire receiver into a manual, it is difficult to deem that the above crime is established against Defendant C and E (whether the above Defendants C received the application for suspension of the operation of the fire receiver’s equipment through the integrated management system of E from the above Defendants, and it is difficult to view it as the act of closing or blocking fire-fighting systems, as seen earlier.

2) Whether occupational injury was recognized

A) Defendant A,

According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is recognized that B, etc. has changed the function of the receiver into several times, confirmed the malfunction of a fire response, and did not place employees who can make an emergency contact while leaving the store, and did not directly convert the receiver into the disaster prevention room after checking the malfunction.

However, in full view of the following circumstances admitted by each of the above evidence, it is difficult to view that there is a proximate causal relationship between the above acts by the prosecutor and the injury of the victims of this case, solely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) The extension of the first floor of the instant building was reduced for the first time by 09:00:17 fire and toxic gas generated from the underground. The toxic gas was rapidly spreaded to the second floor above the ground through the escalator space, which was on the 46 seconds, immediately adjacent to the 46 seconds after the smoke reduction (see, e.g., the instant judgment) and spread to the second floor above the ground where the 58 seconds,000s,0000,0000,00000,00000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,000

(2) A fire safety controller of the instant building started to operate a fire exhauster, a smoke-proof boundary wall, and a alarm device by automatically converting the fire control unit X, 09:01:24 after 67 seconds of the fire reduction area, which is located in W. However, the fire exhausters of the first floor, and a smoke-proof boundary wall of the first floor, all blocking, were not normally operated (see the relevant judgment).

(3) Around 09:02, the extension was down through E service centers of the second floor above the ground level E service center and Pdcot area, which was rapidly spreading to the entire underground floor.

(4) The time when a fire was reduced on the first and second floors of the above receiver’s record was 09:01:01 (e.g., the 09:17:01 on the bench record). The accumulation time was 50 seconds after the fire was reduced even if the fire was reduced. According to the on-site inspection protocol of this court, under the assumption that the heat and the smoke was reduced simultaneously, the time was about 1 minute 8 minutes for the fire exhausters of the above store to the floor. The fire exhausters, etc. were automatically operated for each fire prevention area, which should be the fire reduction place separately. In fact, at around 09:07:35 on the day of this case, only the exhaustr, etc. was limited to some facilities installed at some places despite the operation of the fire exhaustr (Evidence record 515).

(5) In light of the above facts, it is difficult to conclude that, at the time of the instant case, the link function of the fire receiver at the time of the fire receiver was automatic, and the link function of the alarmor at the time of the instant accident was automatic. Even if the fire exhaustr function was operated immediately after the reaction of the fire reduction, it is difficult to prevent the inflow of the fire exhaustr. It is difficult to readily conclude that the victims affected the occurrence or expansion of the injury caused by the inflow of the smoke smoke of the instant case.

B) Defendant C

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the fact that the defendant received the application for suspension of operation of the above fire-fighting system through the E Integrated Management System is recognized.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the facility management service agreement relationship between E and D acknowledged by the above evidence, the Defendant’s business scope in E, and the service company under the above integrated management system, with emphasis on approving and approving the cost item in the case of the service company; and (b) the Defendant did not approve or approve the registration of the application for the suspension of the operation of the above fire-fighting systems; and (c) the Defendant, without any professional understanding, could have been difficult for him to understand the operating method of the fire receiver; (d) the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as a negligence in the course of business, unless the Defendant neglected the duty of guidance and supervision as stated in the facts charged; and even if there was such negligence, it is difficult to find a proximate causal relationship

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged against the Defendants constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Jong-Un

1) The former Fire-Fighting System Act

Article 48

A person who closes a fire-fighting system in violation of the main sentence of Article 9 (3) shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or by a fine not exceeding 30 million won.

Article 9

(1) An interested person of a specific fire-fighting object shall install, maintain and manage fire-fighting systems that shall be equipped in consideration of the size, use, capacity to accommodate, etc. of the specific fire-fighting object in accordance with Presidential Decree.

(3) In maintaining and managing a fire-fighting system pursuant to paragraph (1), an interested person of a specific fire-fighting object shall not close (including locking; hereinafter the same shall apply) or shut down, etc. that may disturb the function and performance of the fire-fighting system: Provided, That he/she may close or shut down the fire-fighting system for inspection and maintenance.

2) The data existing in the waterway is the form in which the relevant log is recorded when the data or server is fabricated in the management program.

(iii)benpool storing fire, head of fire, and monitoring-related data;

A person shall be appointed.