Blocking the toilet water pipe used by merchants… Convicted of applying ‘drinking water blocking law’
Even if a water pipe is installed for another purpose, the Supreme Court has decided that blocking the water pipe is subject to punishment if it is actually used for the purpose of supplying ‘drinking water’.
The 3rd division of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Roh Jeong-hee) announced on the 26th that it had confirmed the lower court sentenced to 10 months in prison and 2 years of probation in the appeal of Mr.
According to the court, Mr. A was accused of having the apartment manager separate the water pipe installed on the ceiling of the bathroom on the second floor of the shopping mall when negotiations on maintenance cost did not go smoothly with the tenants of the shopping mall who connect the plumbing to the apartment water supply around April 2020.
In the court, the issue was whether Mr. A’s behavior was a criminal offense.
Article 195 of the Criminal Act stipulates that a person who blocks the connection by destroying a water supply facility that supplies drinking water to several people, etc., is punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison.
Person A argued, “The water pipe installed in the toilet on the second floor of the shopping mall is not a facility for supplying drinking water, so there is no crime.”
The first trial looked closely at the circumstances leading up to Mr. A’s choice to be singular.
This apartment, built in 1996, originally used underground water as drinking water, but when there was a problem of contamination, in 2010, it spent about 100 million won to build a water supply pipe.
The shopping mall also needed water supply, but the construction did not work because the owners did not want to pay a fee of about 30 million won.
Apartment residents installed water pipes only in the toilets on the second floor of the shopping mall where the management office and senior citizen’s center are located.
The people of the shopping district had no choice but to obtain water by themselves, such as fetching water from their homes, as they could not use the underground water.
From 2013, some tenants of shopping malls started using pipes by connecting them to the water pipes of the 2nd floor bathrooms.
Water and sewage treatment costs were paid according to the meter display, but apartment residents were dissatisfied that the shopping mall was using water at an unreasonably low cost.
The court of first instance judged that the apartment management office received water bills from people in the shopping mall and wrote receipts, so it should be considered that the apartment side also ratified the use of water.
In addition, he pointed out that the water pipes and plumbing in this case are to supply drinking water to commercial tenants and customers, so they should be viewed as ‘waterworks and other facilities that supply the public’s drinking water’ punishable by the violation of water supply.
Person A was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment and the same judgment was maintained in the second trial.
The Supreme Court held that the lower court’s decision was correct.
The court said, “The ‘water supply and other facilities’ subject to water refusal are not limited to those installed for the main purpose of supplying drinking water to the public. I don’t see it differently depending on the relationship.”
/yunhap news