The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: (a) around 09:45 on March 23, 2013, the Defendant operating a steel laboratory with the trade name “D” in Jeju-si; (b) around 3, 2013, the Defendant was engaged in maintenance and repair work of the victim F, which was installed outside the building, along with H, from the fright of the victim in Jeju-si, or from the fright of the building, with H, with the fright of carrying things installed outside the building; (c) the Defendant was able to get the fright of the steel fright, under the fright of the steel fright; (d) the Defendant was engaged in work adjacent to the fright of the steel fright to the fright of the building; and (d) the Defendant was at the risk of fire due to fire frighting around the building; (d) the Defendant was at the 0th of the surrounding parking lot and the surrounding 7th of the building with the fire fright of the building without due care to prevent fire.

2. As to the judgment of the court below, the court below is virtually the only evidence consistent with the facts charged in this case: (i) the Supreme Prosecutors' Office scientific investigation officer of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office written appraisal of the fire investigation team (hereinafter "written appraisal of this case"). In light of H's statement, it is difficult to readily conclude that the point where the fire in this case occurred is the entrance of the exhaust stack; (ii) the possibility of fire in the door of the instant door or the building washing machine cannot be ruled out; and (iii) the defendant is the fire that occurred while the fire in this case occurred.