The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal, according to the expert report prepared by the examination report prepared by the large quantity of heat emission, i.e., large number of cigarette smokes, and there is a high possibility of fire caused by salt fire. As such, there is a possibility that fire may occur due to the cigarette smoke of both the Defendant and C, and without checking whether cigarette butts were completely cut in a environment where fire risk, such as the point of combustion in this case, it fulfilled the duty of care to prevent fire if the Defendant and C throwed away cigarette butts in a environment where the fire risk exists, such as the point of combustion in this case.

It cannot be seen that the defendant did not confirm whether cigarette butts have been removed clearly, and as long as the fact that he throw away cigarette butts is recognized, there is a high possibility that the cigarette butts might have existed at the beginning of the cigarette butt, and as such, there was a condition of the occurrence of the fire in this case, the defendant's negligence together with C caused the fire in this case.

Although the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the causal relationship with the criminal negligence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on its reasoning, cannot exclude the possibility of the occurrence of the instant fire due to C, not the Defendant, and accordingly, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone proves that the Defendant was the cause of the instant fire, without reasonable doubt, that the instant cigarette butts were the cause of the fire.

It is difficult to see it, and judged the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the other grounds that there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

The lower court’s findings are as follows based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., ① does not confirm whether the Defendant’s investigation conducted by an investigative agency to the charge of the instant fire, and without checking whether the Defendant was completely cut out of the cigarette butts.