The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the first place of the fire of this case is near the shielder’s mother; (b) the Defendant Company D (hereinafter “instant company”) operated by the Defendant used extended work on the day of the instant case; (c) the said breakinger was not properly managed by means of periodic cleaning, etc.; and (d) the probability of the fire of this case occurred due to reasons other than the Defendant’s negligence, such as natural combustion, electrical factors, fire prevention, or fire fighting, is very rare; (b) in light of the fact that the fire of this case was caused by the Defendant’s breach of the duty of care for the management of the Defendant’s melter.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The lower court determined: ① in the factory machinery room of the instant company, there are devices that automatically block electricity if the chills are overheateded or broken down, and the chills are designed to prevent the chillic operation due to heating itself; ② if wastes or their dust are stored separately on the cater of the instant case, the chills may stop or break down; ② the Defendant was set up in parallel with the upper chills in order to prevent this from spreading; ③ the c) there were devices that automatically block electricity if the chills are overheatedd or broken down, and the c) the chills were designed to prevent the chillic operation due to heating, and the c) the c) no more than 3:5:0 on March 18, 2014 at the time of the instant inspection of all the c) and no more than 3:5:0 on the date of the instant installation operation after the completion of the inspection of all the c).