The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal acknowledged the fact that the Defendant incinerated waste at around 07:00 on the date of the occurrence of the instant fire, and the record of the instant case reveals that the Defendant appears to have commenced fire at a place where garbage was incinerated, and it is difficult to view that there was an additional incineration work thereafter, and therefore, it is sufficient to recognize the facts charged of the instant case.

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant can be found to have loaded waste at the garbage incineration site located adjacent to the victim's tree tree owned by the fire of this case at around 07:00 on the day of this case. As to whether the defendant's act of incineration as above can be recognized as having caused the fire of this case, the report on the field identification report on the fact that "the possibility of fire that the fire of this case was destroyed by the fire that was destroyed by the fire of this case" can be used as supporting the above act of incineration, and the report on the evaluation report on the fact that "the location of the garbage incineration can be limited to the combustion unit, and the location of the garbage incineration can be limited to the combustion unit, and if there was no additional act of incineration, etc. at the place of the garbage incineration of this case from around 14:45 until the time of the fire of this case, it can be deemed that the fire was caused by the fire of this case due to the fire that was remaining after leaving garbage around

However, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, i.e., (i) the above appraisal statement, “it cannot be definitely mentioned whether the remaining weather conditions after burning waste around 07:00 only caused a direct fire,” and thus, it cannot be determined that there exists a causal relationship between the Defendant’s waste incineration act and the fire of this case.