[2] The case affirming the judgment of the court below which acquitted the charge of the crime of death or injury caused to the present main structure by omission on the ground that it is difficult to view that the fire could not be easily extinguishing solely on the ground that, in the case where a fire was caused by the preceding act of a serious negligence, the fire was a legal obligation to extinguish the fire inasmuch as the above fire was caused by the preceding act of a serious negligence, on the ground that it is difficult to view that the fire could have been easily extinguishing on the ground that the mere fact that the fact that the said fire was not reported to the urine or other guests while leaving the urine or other guests while leaving the urbing with the inside of the fact of a fire is difficult, on the ground that it was difficult to view that the fire could have been easily extinguishing on the ground that there was a fire

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the candidate for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”).

A. As to the assertion that there is no responsibility for the occurrence of the instant fire

The defendant and the state appointed defense counsel alleged in this part of the grounds of appeal are erroneous in the fact-finding of the judgment below. However, since the authority of fact-finding falls under the exclusive authority of the court of fact-finding unless it goes beyond the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, it can not be found that the judgment of the court below was reached beyond the above limit in this case by comparing the records with the judgment of the court below, the appeal is just to criticize matters falling under the exclusive authority of the court

B. As to the assertion that there is no risk of recidivism

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below's decision that the defendant's mental disorder needs to be treated at a medical treatment and custody facility for reasons as stated in its holding is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the risk of recidivism under Article 2 (1) 1 of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

C. As to the assertion that the state of mental disorder was the state of mental disorder

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below is justified in holding that at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant was in a weak state of ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to alcohol-related mental disorder, and further, it is difficult to deem that the defendant was in a state of loss of the above ability, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to mental disorder as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. As to the primary facts charged

The Prosecutor asserts that the lower court’s fact-finding was erroneous. However, as long as the authority of fact-finding does not exceed the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, the fact-finding authority belongs to the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court. Thus, in this case where it cannot be found that the lower court’s determination on evidence exceeded the above limit, the argument of the appeal is nothing more than criticism of matters falling under the exclusive authority of the lower court, and it does not constitute legitimate

B. As to the first preliminary charges

In a case where a person who is legally obligated to act to prevent infringement of legal interest prohibited by the Criminal Act fails to perform his/her duty, in order to punish him/her as a crime of omission in the same manner as the act of commission was performed, such duty shall be deemed to have the same criminal value as that of infringement of legal interest by commission, inasmuch as the omission is deemed to have the same value as that of infringement of legal interest by commission, even though he/she could have easily prevented the occurrence of the result by performing that duty, and the failure to perform that duty can be deemed as a result of not performing that duty, and it shall be deemed that the omission has the same value as that of infringement of legal interest by commission (see Supreme Court Decisions 91Do2951, Feb. 11, 192; 2003Do4128, Apr. 28, 2006

The court below held that the fire of this case caused the result of fire by neglecting the capability of fire extinguishing in addition to the defendant's duty of fire extinguishing in accordance with the law, and the fire of this case was likely to cause the result of fire by neglecting the force of fire extinguishing already occurred due to the defendant's violation of the duty of fire extinguishing, and as long as the fire of this case was caused by the prior act of the defendant's gross negligence, the fire of this case is legally liable to extinguishing the fire of this case, and the defendant's negligence was presumed to constitute gross negligence, and it is hard to find that the defendant was not guilty of the fire of this case on the ground that the fire of this case was destroyed by gross negligence of the defendant.

Examining the records in light of the above legal principles, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of omission, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)