The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant D of all of the facts, on the ground that there was a violation of individual occupational duty of care for an explosion accident under Article 707 of the Special Act on the Management of Urban Gas Business of Defendant D and Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant accident”), on the grounds that Defendant D violated the individual occupational duty of care for the explosion accident under Article 707 of the Special Act on the Management of Urban Gas of Gyeonggi-do, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (two years of suspended execution in August of each imprisonment without prison labor) is too uneasy and unfair.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to each of the facts charged in this part, the lower court: (a) there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant D knew that the gas measuring instruments replaced did not have the secret performance, and (b) furthermore, even if the gas measuring instruments replaced was not properly executed in the course of performing the construction work for replacing the gas measuring instruments as set forth in subparagraph 707, the lower court is clear that the Defendant D was aware of the fact that the gas measuring instruments replaced did not have the secret performance; and (c) even if the gas measuring instruments replaced did not have the secret performance, it is clear that the punishment for negligence is punishable under the interpretation of the main text of Article 51(3) and Article 12(2) of the Urban Gas Business Act.

However, inasmuch as it appears that Defendant D was unaware of the gas measuring instruments replaced due to the failure to properly carry out the rubber list to verify gas leakage after the replacement of the gas measuring instrument, the part of the gas pipeline connection did not properly install rubber strawing to prevent gas leakage, as seen above, and thus, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone violates the duty of direct and specific occupational care.