The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the Defendant was paid daily allowances to the persons employed by the J; and (b) the Defendant was not informed by the said J or the contractor that the two-story floor gap in the instant site was caused by the said J or the contractor; (c) the Defendant breached the duty of care as stated in the judgment below.

It is difficult to see the fire in the holding of the court below, and it cannot be viewed that the fire was caused by the defendant's contact construction.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. During the process of determining whether the defendant violated the duty of care, the fire can occur to protruding with the fire on the surface, and the gap of the second floor, which is the work site of this case, cannot be identified with the surface. As such, the defendant has a duty of care to confirm the risk of fire prior to the construction of a melting construction and take fire prevention measures including the installation of preventions, and even if the defendant was to receive daily allowances and was merely employed by J, it is difficult to say that the above attention is exempted. Since the defendant did not take measures such as installing a spread at the work site for the prevention of fire due to the melting fire, the judgment of the court below recognizing the defendant's violation of the duty of care is just, and there is no error of mistake as to the facts pointed out by the defendant.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the existence of a causal relationship, namely, ① from the fire site investigation report on the fire of this case, the Japanese fire station expressed its opinion that the fire occurred during the electrical use of the second floor at the fire site in the fire site on the fire of this case seems to have been separated from the gap of the second floor floor, and ② assist the Defendant’s construction.