(a) the scope of obligations in the crime of occupational loss;

(b) Recognition of liability for the crimes of fire occurrence and fire extinguishment due to concurrent negligence;

C. Degree of probative value of evidence to be found guilty

(a) In the case of the crime of occupational loss, it shall include the case where the duties are not limited to the direct handling of the fire that has caused the fire in the course of performing his duties, but the duties are crossed out such as the prevention of the discovery of fire

B. In the event of a fire due to competition of joint fault, as long as at least one condition is imposed on the occurrence of the fire by negligence, each person who provided the joint cause must be held liable for the crime of extinguishment.

C. The probative value of the evidence to be convicted should be such that it may bring about convictions to the extent that it could eliminate reasonable doubts, and it is not enough to have superior probative value than opposite evidence.

A. Article 171 of the Criminal Act: Articles 170 and 171(c) of the Criminal Act; Article 307 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorney Yu Jae-gu, No. 50

Jeju District Court Decision 81No245 delivered on August 13, 1982

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Jeju District Court Panel Division.

The Defendants’ defense counsel are examined together with the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 (for the supplemental appellate brief of Attorneys Hwang Jae-in, to the extent of supplement in case of the above grounds of appeal).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below found the defendants guilty of the facts charged that the defendants destroyed the factory of this case by occupational negligence as stated in its judgment.

In the case of the crime of occupational loss, it shall not be limited to directly dealing with the fire that caused the fire in the course of performing his duties, but shall include the case where the obligation to detect, prevent, etc. the fire is erased, and in the case of a fire due to concurrent negligence, at least one condition is imposed on the occurrence of the fire, unless each negligence at least one condition is imposed on each person who provided the joint cause. According to the records, the defendants neglected the duty of care as stated in the above holding, and neglected it to install the lezzle of the lezzle which was installed in the lezzle factory, and immediately removed it. Thus, if the fire occurred as a result of a fire that was separated in the process of removing the lezzle, the defendants cannot avoid liability for the crime of occupational negligence.

However, although the facts charged are that the fire was spread to the end of the decoration of about 10 hours away from the river basin when removing the side of the light, there is no direct evidence to conclude that the fire occurred due to the fire that occurred from the side of the previous light on the record from the point of ruling to the point of ruling. In such a case, in order to recognize that there is a substantial causal relationship between the above occupational negligence of the Defendants and the fire of this case, first, in order to recognize that there is a substantial causal relationship between the above occupational negligence of the Defendants, and the fire of this case, first, in the case where the electric side was installed at the end of the 60 bitle, it can be caused by a fire due to the heat from the river basin and the previous side, second, if the thalle of the previous light fell from the floor when removing the side of the previous light at the time of the removal, and third, in the case where the bitle lue lue lue is lowered, it should be proved by a scientific evidence that can be found to be naturally occurring.

Therefore, in full view of the evidence cited by the court below, the first and second points are justified (the defendant 2 and witness's net money statements were not considered to fall and the body of autopsy was reduced according to the statements of the court below. However, as long as the fact that defects occurred on the front side is proved, the body of autopsy may decrease the re-speed.).

However, among the evidence cited by the court below, it is only a statement on the investigation guidance of the Public Security Headquarters and the statement on the preparation of the last shot light, which is a police officer belonging to the court below, and the remaining evidence is merely a witness at the court below and the court below and the court of first instance, and it seems that the abstract situation of a fire is not direct evidence of this case or the circumstance is not direct evidence. Even according to the witness at the above last order, the result of the appraisal of this case was based on the police investigation and related persons (the witness at the time of removal of the defendant and the front son, the witness at the time of removal)'s statement on the ground that the witness's report on the harm of the remaining in the fire site and the other causes and points of the appraisal is not considered. The results of the appraisal are that "the fire at the time of the determination of each above paragraph is stored in the front 600 square meters of rice shot light of the front shot light of the front shot light."

This conclusion is based on the presumptional conclusion extracted by comprehensively taking account of the statements made by the Defendants and the aforementioned net money, that the former side as seen in the postponement was at the time of removing the former side and that such remarks were made.

However, according to the results of the appraisal of Kim-wing, which was not adopted by the court below, the appraiser collected the situation of fire, such as the written indictment, in order to distinguish the possibility of salmatation if the salmatization is lowered, and (1) the condition of covering the salphys by the salphys size (2) covering the salphys by the salphys of the salphys size (3) above, and exposed to the salphys by the salphys of the above salphys, etc., (4) the salphys of the same kind as the salphys of the previous light of this case, are easily set up to the 6-9 square centimeters, and the test of whether the salphys are exposed to the salphys of the salphys within a maximum of 10 minutes after making an examination of the salphys of this case.

The probative value of evidence for the crime of false conviction of the defendant should be such that it may bring about convictions to the extent that it excludes reasonable doubts, and it is not enough to have superior probative value than opposite evidence.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the result of the appraisal of Kim Ba, which was shown more scientific and reasonable by the court below, was based on the presumption appraisal that the fire was caused by the experiments of the above highest level that could not be said to be superior to this, and was caused by the fact that the fire occurred from the front side far away from the sloping floor, and that there was no probability to acknowledge that the fire was in a substantial relation between the so-called fire and the fire of this case's failure to perform the duty of care as stated in the defendants' decision, and even if the records were recorded, there was no clear material to distinguish the point where the fire of this case falls or that the fire of this case was falling, the point where the fire of this case was falling, or that there was no clear material to distinguish the point where the fire of this case was fire of this case's accident, the court below found the defendants guilty, despite the fact that the principle of rationality was confused in the preparation of evidence and that there was a violation of the rules of evidence and that the above judgment did not contain any sufficient evidence.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeju District Court Panel Division, which is the judgment below, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)