I would say to break it down some. :P I also added some words, and took a few out. I hope you like it..... and I hope I am understanding this correctly. I will try. An "Emergency" refers to a serious situation that happens unexpectedly. Types of emergencies can include disasters, accidents, and crises, which can lead to personal injury, property loss, or even death. Some of these occurrences include; major crime, public security, fire alarms, and leakage. These are all related to the Gem Club Project's public safety, benefits, and accidents. This generates a direct impact on more than three neighboring merchants and over 500 square meters of the construction site.

I am a lawyer. I don't think it quite makes sense :) (Note: I do not write contracts.) I don't understand "those of which related to." Without "those of which", it would make more sense. There are few other things that I think could be more clear. Here is how I would rewrite it: “Emergency” refers to any disaster or accident which leads to personal injury or property loss, including but not limited to: major criminal incident, public security incident, fire alarm, leakage and so on, which is related to the public safety of the Gems Cube project or to public benefits and has a direct impact on more than three neighboring merchants or over 500 square meters of the construction area. -I do not think you should use "emergency" as part of the definition of emergency. Other words might be better instead of disaster (incident, event, etc.) -"case" usually refers to a legal proceeding, particularly when combined with criminal, and I do not think that is what you are attempting to reference. If you are, ignore my change to 'incident' -I removed "severe accidents" because you were essentially saying "An emergency is any accident that causes injury and is related to a severe accident." It is unneeded. -I reconfigured the final clause into the two separate clauses they look like they should be. If they are not two separate clauses, change my "and" to an "or which," but I think the separation and "having" is still clearer and appropriate.

Yeah it makes sense, but only if you are a lawyer :) It's correct English, but I don't even understand legal things lol.