All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) revealed that Defendant A and B continued to operate the fire-fighting facility in a passive way in light of the evidence of this case. Defendant C’s failure to comply with the duty to guide and supervise the fire-fighting facility through the receipt of the application for suspension of operation of the fire-fighting facility, thereby blocking the fire-fighting facility. Defendant D Co., Ltd.’s injury to the victims due to the occupational negligence. Defendant D Co., Ltd, as Defendant A and B’s employer, and Defendant E Co., Ltd., were an employer against Defendant C, and its employees prevented the closure of the fire-fighting facility. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby acquitted the Defendants.

2. In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value, which can lead a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10096, Jun. 25, 2009). The court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge that the defendants closed down fire-fighting facilities. It is difficult to recognize that the defendant A and B temporarily convert the automatic linkage system to check fire receivers, but did not automatically convert into several times to check the automatic system, and then, it is difficult to recognize a considerable causal relationship between the victim's injury or expansion due to the inflow of poisonous inflow and the victim's injury, as pointed out by the agent of W Co., Ltd., the complainant, by taking into account the circumstances of "09Do305, Mar. 25, 2005".