The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fines are imposed by the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts was requested for soundproofing construction, and Co-Defendant B’s repeated coercion and instruction led to the occurrence of the instant fire. As such, the Defendant could not be held liable for breach of duty of care for the occurrence of the instant fire on a different premise, the lower court’s judgment holding the Defendant liable for negligence on a different premise is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s judgment on unreasonable sentencing (fine 300,000,000) against the Defendant was too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B requested Co-Defendant A to carry out the above transshipment work and did not have any specific direction and supervision, and thus, it cannot be recognized that Defendant violated Defendant’s duty of care with respect to the occurrence of the fire of this case, and the Defendant’s commission of the above painting work cannot be seen as Defendant’s “business”. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding Defendant’s duty of care on different premise.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination, the prosecutor shall examine the case at his discretion, and the prosecutor shall read "in the case where he has been aware of the fact that the sandd position panel had a stirings, etc. with a stirings between the iron plates, and continues to carry the cutting work by the stirings, etc., the stirings could have been moved to the stirings of the said sandd position panel" as " was likely to move the stirings, etc. if he continues to carry the cutting work with the stirings, etc. inside the sandd position panel", and the 22th part of the indictment as " was well known that the stirings, etc., were accumulated well," and the 29th part "in the case of the 29th part, the stirings, etc., were stored."