Supreme Court Confirms Not Guilty Verdict for Building Manager Who Turned Off Fire Safety Equipment Despite Repeated Malfunctions

Supreme Court in Seocho-dong, Seoul. Photo by Honam Moon munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has acquitted building fire safety managers who failed to restore fire-fighting facilities that had been shut off for maintenance of repeatedly malfunctioning fire alarms. Considering the continued malfunctioning of the fire-fighting facilities, it was difficult to view the inspection and maintenance as completed, and thus the violation of the Firefighting Facilities Act could not be applied.

On the 29th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Lee Honggu) announced that it upheld the lower court's ruling of not guilty in the appeal trial of building fire safety managers A and B, who were charged with violating the Firefighting Facilities Act.

In December 2017, building fire safety manager A and others in Sejong City were prosecuted for failing to reactivate fire-fighting facilities such as fire pumps, sprinklers, and fire alarms that had been shut off for maintenance after inspection.

Article 9, Paragraph 3 of the current Firefighting Facilities Act stipulates that "persons responsible for specific fire safety targets shall not perform acts such as closing or shutting off that may interfere with the function and performance of fire-fighting facilities" when maintaining and managing fire-fighting facilities. However, exceptions are made for inspection and maintenance of fire-fighting facilities.

The first and second trials acquitted them. The second trial court stated, "To recognize the charges in this case as guilty, it must be proven that the inspection and maintenance of the relevant fire-fighting facilities were completed and that the defendants had an obligation to reactivate the fire-fighting facilities. However, considering that fire alarms due to malfunctions were continuously issued even at specific times pointed out by the prosecution, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the inspection and maintenance of the fire-fighting facilities were completed."

The Supreme Court also agreed with this judgment. The court dismissed the prosecution's appeal, stating, "The lower court did not err in interpreting Article 9, Paragraph 3 of the Firefighting Facilities Act."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.