The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the apartment house on the specific fire-fighting object under the Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems, and the defendant is the president of the council of occupants' representatives of the apartment of this case who is related to the fire-fighting related Acts and subordinate statutes.

If the head of the competent fire station orders necessary measures when fire-fighting systems, etc. fail to install or maintain them in accordance with the fire safety standards, the person related to a specific fire-fighting object shall comply therewith.

The Defendant, until July 7, 2014, issued a corrective and supplementary order to “the chief of a shipping force fire station” on defective fire-fighting systems, such as automatic fire detection equipment, pursuant to the “the result of a comprehensive precision inspection in 2014” of the apartment of this case, but did not implement the order as of July 31, 2014.

2. Article 9(2) of the Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems provides that “The head of a fire headquarters or the head of a fire station may order an interested person of the relevant specific fire-fighting object to take necessary measures when a fire-fighting system fails to install, maintain, or manage in compliance with the fire safety standards.” Article 48-2 Subparag. 1 provides that “A person who violates an order under Article 9(2) without good cause shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three years or by a fine not exceeding 1

However, even if all of the evidence of this case is examined, there is no ground to acknowledge that the defendant received an “necessary measure order” under Article 9(2) above from the chief of the Shipping Department, and it is only recognized that the chief of the management office of the apartment of this case received the “necessary measure order” and notified the defendant.

In light of the principle of clarity in the interpretation of penal law, it is reasonable to see that the person who violated the above order is limited to the person designated as the person performing the above order, and in order to regard the defendant as the other party to the above order.