Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of a composite building, which is a complex building used together for the purpose of neighborhood living facilities, business facilities, and housing in Gyeonggi-si B.

An interested person of a specific fire-fighting object shall conduct a regular self-inspection on fire-fighting systems, etc. installed in such object at least once a year until the month belonging to the approval for use of buildings.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not conduct a self-examination of the fire-fighting systems, etc. in February 28, 2019, which was the end of the month to which the date of approval for use of the said C building belongs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each written statement of D and E;

1. Certification of a fire-fighting-related statute;

1. Report on the results of self-inspection of fire-fighting systems in 2019;

1. The ordinary building ledger;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing a fire safety controller;

1. Article 49 subparagraph 4 of the same Act and Article 25 (1) of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Fire-Fighting Systems Act") on criminal facts;

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

1. Judgment on the key issue of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The Defendant alleged that he had an explanation from the staff in charge of a fire station that he had a grace period of one month with respect to the self-inspection, and completed the inspection on March 2019, which was within the grace period.

Therefore, the defendant cannot be viewed as violating the Fire-Fighting System Act.

2. According to the records of this case, the employees who explained the defendant about the self-inspection of fire-fighting systems are deemed to have been fire-fighting officers D.

However, on March 19, 2018, the statement of the fire officer D was confirmed by the Defendant on whether the operation function of the C Building was inspected by telephone, and the Defendant conducted occasional inspections in February, and the accurate time was not memory.