beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
Summary of Grounds for Appeal
According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the defendant could find the fact that the fire of this case occurred due to negligence without completely extinguishing the fire of cigarette butts as stated in the facts charged, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Judgment
The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below:
Even based on the result of the verification of video CDs by the lower court, the Defendant cannot verify the situation during the series of times from the parking lot of the instant building to the time the instant fire occurred after smoking the tobacco. Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant’s negligence caused the instant fire.
In addition, the windows and rooftops of the rooms of the 2,3, and 4th floors of the D Building where the fire of this case occurred on each map of CCTV installed in the D Building of this case cannot be confirmed. In addition, there is a possibility that no one could have laid the cigarette butts, etc. to the boundary of the air of this case. Moreover, since the vacant land where the fire of this case occurred is used as a parking lot and the entrance from the outside is relatively free, it cannot be ruled out that the fire of this case occurred by the third party who entered the rack of this case.
On the other hand, the police officer K who investigated the fire site of this case seems to have suspected of committing the crime of this case on the sole basis of the above CCTV screen image, and the inspector M belonging to the Seo-gu Daejeon fire fighter was judged to have been lower than the closed household located on the parking lot of this case on the ground of the location of the fire of this case. However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to exclude the possibility of a third party's intervention.