1. The defendant shall be punished by a fine of 700,000 won;

2. If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50.1 day.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person in charge of the management of the seven-story underground and the five-story underground building with a total floor area of approximately 17,441 square meters constructed on the above ground in Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon.

An interested person of such specific fire-fighting object shall conduct regular self-checks on fire-fighting systems, etc. installed in such objects, or regularly inspect such systems by the manager or the technical qualification prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Security and Public Administration, and the interested person of the objects of fire safety shall appoint a fire safety controller to conduct

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not conduct a regular inspection by February 28, 2013, which is the regular time limit, and even though the fire safety controller of the building was dismissed on January 31, 2013, the Defendant did not appoint a fire safety controller within 30 days thereafter.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Application of a report on a fire-fighting-related statute;

1. Where the relevant statutory provisions for facts of crime and the inspection of an alternative fire-fighting system is not conducted: Points of failing to appoint a safety manager under Articles 49 subparagraph 4 and 25 (1) of the Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems: Subparagraph 5 of Article 50 and Article 20 (2) of the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems Act;

2. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

4. Although Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order has a history of being punished for the same kind of crime on the grounds of sentencing, the Defendant appears to have been inevitably committed the instant crime while the Defendant was faced with corporate rehabilitation procedures and faced with business difficulties such as the commencement of auction, and the Defendant’s age, character, conduct, and all other circumstances were taken into account to determine the punishment as ordered.