The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the misunderstanding of facts (the defendant)'s gross negligence death, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges, although the defendant could not have predicted the death of the victim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment, confiscation) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too heavy or unhuable and unfair.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The judgment of the court below also made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that it is reasonable to view that the defendant's neighboring residents can easily know such circumstances (see Article 358 of the Investigation Record) and that the fact that the person's death can be caused by the poisoning in a sealed space can be easily predicted even if the person with the age or experience in the degree of the defendant's age or experience was only a little amount of attention.

B. In the above judgment of the court below, it seems that the court below clearly stated that the defendant died of the victim by avoiding charcoal at the time of reporting to 112 (181 pages of investigation record), and that in addition to the fact that the defendant could have predicted to some extent that the defendant could have been able to die in a case where he turns off in a closed space when he calls for a telephone to U prior to 112 (355 pages of investigation record), the defendant could have been shotd and died. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the defendant's assertion, the decision of the court below is justified.