The part against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Central District Court.

1.(a)

The judgment below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the fire of this case in the judgment of the court below, based on its reasoning, occurred due to the fact that the defendant A operated the instant singing room which is always exposed to fire risks due to a large number of electrical equipment, and that the fire of this case occurred due to the fact that the defendant A failed to fulfill his duty to take protective measures, such as covering a lid in the back of the ordinary singing-recording equipment or cleaning dust, etc.

B. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

The following circumstances revealed by the record, namely, ① each fire inspection result of a leisure police station or a leisure fire station, stating the purport that the cause of the fire of this case is unknown or that accurate points of the fire in the room presumed to have been emitted within the instant singing room are not known, ② the report on the results of the identification of the preparation of a leisure police station (Evidence No. 3): “The summary of the case: the electrical spons occur during the spons of electrical equipment pre-inspection, and the fire occurs (see the report on the situation of the dopons).” However, it appears to be based on the presumption of the police box without fire identification ability; ③ there is no evidence that the sponsing machine in the room presumed to have been emitted within the instant singing room is the first one; ④ there is no evidence that the witness G may have a large amount of dust on the back of the instant singing room, and ④ there is a possibility that the fire can occur only if there is an excessive amount of dust, not on the other hand, due to the fire sponsing dust.