The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On the day of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) after completing the installation of a gas tank at around 10:0 a.m. on the day of the instant case, confirmed the condition of the apparatus of pressure control and measured low pressure; (b) there was no safety problem; and (c) there was no lack of a short twit line.

Nevertheless, there is a breach of duty of care such as the entry in the facts charged against the defendant.

In light of the above, the judgment of the court below convicts the charged facts of this case is erroneous.

B. The grounds for appeal by the defendant of the improper sentencing include the assertion of mistake of facts and the argument about the family situation of the defendant, and it is judged as the argument about sentencing.

The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acknowledged the factual misunderstanding as follows based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the Defendant: (a) installed the LPG gas source on the day of the instant case; and (b) concluded and fixed the TPG gas unit (sadle and fixed string); and (c) the fire of this case occurred since the damaged person has not long elapsed since he started his business; and (d) Tconnection (conform with the gas string by entering the gas string) products are 11.5 ±05 m in external diameter; (c) the parts used by the Defendant appear to have lower the degree of combination with the gas string than the string product; and (d) H witnessed the instant fire, “after the instant accident,” and it seems to have saddleed the situation after considering the automatic sound and stringing.

“Written statement”, the type of burning the fire scene photographs also conforms to the statements of witnesses, the victim began in the business at the 15th century, and the gas was automatically taken out.