A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

An interested person of a specific fire-fighting object shall not close or block fire-fighting systems, etc. that may impede the function and performance of such systems, etc. in maintaining and managing such systems, etc.

The Defendant is the owner of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Building (Class II neighborhood living facilities, 5 floors above ground, and 52.8 square meters above total floor area), and was managed around October 18, 2013 in a state of blocking all of the reception teams of emergency alarm facilities installed in the above building, and made it impossible to give emergency alerts despite the occurrence of fire in the above building at around 04:16 on the same day.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of OF photographic Acts and subordinate statutes to the two-time survey reception teams of building;

1. Articles 48 and 9 (3) of the Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems for Criminal Facts;

2. Selection of penalty penalty:

3. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “instant fire”) on October 18, 2013: (a) around 04:16, 2013, the Defendant was hospitalized in the English department of D University English and English English school E, residing in the above C building (hereinafter “instant fire”) with low oxygen cerebral brain damage; (b) if the emergency alarm equipment stated in the facts charged was properly operated, it would have been likely to prevent or reduce damage from fire; (c) the Defendant was not directly blocking the installation of emergency alarm equipment, but rather, the Defendant was hospitalized to remove noise caused by the malfunction of emergency alarm equipment. (c) Even after the discharge, the Defendant was hospitalized in order to treat the heart disease, the Defendant opened the entrance of each of the instant buildings to stop or prevent damage from fire; and (d) even after the discharge, the emergency alarm equipment was not neglected to monitor the emergency alarm equipment for about 11 months; and (d) the fire of this case was opened to the entrance of this case.