The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: E company’s place of business in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu shall be subject to specific fire-fighting facilities under the former Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (amended by Act No. 12207, Jan. 7, 2014; hereinafter “former Fire-Fighting Systems Act”); according to the above Act, fire-fighting systems for specific fire-fighting objects shall be regularly inspected; and according to the former Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Installation, Maintenance, and Safety Control of Fire-Fighting Systems (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25050, Dec. 30, 2013; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Fire-Fighting Systems Act”), fire-fighting equipment, escape equipment, etc. must be installed in specific fire-fighting objects; and Defendant has been working as a person in charge of fire-fighting safety of the above company; thus, the above company’s place of business shall have the duty of care to prevent fire-fighting facilities and conduct fire-fighting inspections.

In this regard, the defendant did not properly manage and supervise the heating facilities of the building in the air room in the above workplace, and did not properly prepare fire extinguishing equipment or roads to rapidly extinguish the fire if the fire occurred, and neglected the above duty of care by failing to conduct any fire inspection on the above air room building, and it could be sufficiently predicted that the victim G, who is an employee of the above company, could sleep or rest in the above air room building even after the completion of the duty.

Therefore, as long as the fire of this case occurred due to the Defendant’s breach of the above duty of care, the relationship between the negligence and the victim’s death is recognized and the relationship of objective attribution is recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the E in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu (hereinafter “instant company”).