The Supreme Court ruled that a construction contractor brought to trial on charges of causing a fire by conducting electrical work at an obstetrics and gynecology clinic in Cheongju, North Chungcheong, should be found guilty of occupational negligent arson.
The Supreme Court's Third Division (presiding Justice Lee Heung-gu) said on the 20th that on Jan. 9 it overturned the lower court's ruling that sentenced a construction company head, a person surnamed Choi, 37, who was indicted on charges including occupational negligent arson and violating the Electrical Construction Business Act, to eight months in prison, suspended for two years, and sent the case back to the Cheongju District Court.
Earlier, at an obstetrics and gynecology clinic in Cheongju, a fire broke out at about 10 a.m. on Mar. 29, 2022, and 122 people, including newborns, mothers, and hospital staff, evacuated or were moved to a safe area. Forty-five people, including newborns, inhaled smoke or were frightened and were transferred to other hospitals. The fire was extinguished after three hours, but it burned parts of the obstetrics and gynecology building and the motel right next to it, causing 2.028 billion won in property damage.
Forensic analysis found that the fire started at the terminal end of the heating cable on the water pipe in the first-floor parking lot of the clinic building, where Choi had been in charge of the construction. Instead of using a verified safe heating cable, Choi used self-made materials, and finished the cable's terminal end with vinyl electrical tape, which carries a high fire risk.
Choi was not registered as an electrical construction contractor. The hospital's facilities manager, a person surnamed Hwang, 59, assigned the work to Choi without checking whether he was qualified. On the day of the fire, even though safety had not been confirmed, the heating cable was arbitrarily plugged into an outlet, causing the fire. Prosecutors indicted Hwang together with Choi on a charge of occupational negligent arson.
In the first trial, Choi was sentenced to one year and six months in prison, and Hwang to 10 months in prison, suspended for two years. The first trial court found Choi guilty of occupational negligent arson, saying, "Negligence is recognized, such as using a self-made heating cable product instead of a heating cable that bears a safety certification mark."
As for Hwang, the court said, "After the work was completed, a trial run of the heating cable should have been conducted with Choi present to check whether the work had been carried out properly, but the heating cable was arbitrarily plugged into an outlet while the work was not yet complete," and recognized the charge of occupational negligent arson.
On appeal, the court did not recognize the charge of occupational negligent arson and sentenced Choi to eight months in prison, suspended for two years, and acquitted Hwang. Regarding Choi, the appellate court said, "It does not seem impossible that rainwater splashed into the outlet, causing the breaker to trip and not operate, so negligence cannot be found." Regarding Hwang, it did not recognize causation between negligence and the fire, saying, "After a test run, Choi explained that it 'operates normally.'"
The Supreme Court, by contrast, said, "Even if no direct evidence is found to determine the ignition cause or the specific process of the fire, it is reasonable to view it as having occurred due to occupational negligence," and held that Choi and Hwang should be found guilty of occupational negligent arson.
The Supreme Court said, "It is clear that this fire originated from an electrical device installed by Choi at Hwang's direction that did not have ordinary safety features," and added, "The fire was caused by a short circuit at the terminal end of a constant-temperature cable installed by Choi that had been finished with vinyl electrical tape. There are no other factors that can be presumed as the cause of the fire."
A Supreme Court official said, "Even if the ignition mechanism is not proven by direct evidence in a fire case, occupational negligent arson liability can be recognized by synthesizing circumstantial and indirect facts, reaffirming the existing legal doctrine," and added, "It is also a case that clarified the scope of liability by recognizing the negligence of the manager who entrusted the work to an unregistered contractor."