The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that the defendant, the head of a restaurant kitchen, did not enter the food oil used in cooking, controlled gas burners' fire well, used an appropriate quantity of food according to the degree of co-operation, clean-up of oil time around the burner, and neglected his duty of care to prevent them from spreading in a imprept, but neglected his duties of care to prevent them from spreading in a imprept.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by the evidence duly admitted by the lower court.

① At the time of the instant fire, the Defendant’s shop around the D cafeteria, which was the main place of the instant fire, is densely concentrated with a narrow store, such as a restaurant, and the mard and exhaust ducts are fluored by the main place of the instant fire, so it is easy for anyone to easily expect that the fire will be vulnerable through the mar and exhaust duct, and if a fire occurs at a certain shop, it seems easy to move to a neighboring shop through the exhaust duct. As such, the Defendant, who is the person in charge of directly handling the fire, as the main place of the instant kitchen, has the duty to pay more careful attention to prevent the mard and exhaust duct from going to the mar and the exhaust duct or from protruding it.

② 피고인은 수사기관에서 일관하여 식용유를 프라이팬에 붓자마자 식용유가 팍팍팍 요동을 치면서 또는 소리를 내면서 60cm 높이로 튀어 올랐고, 순식간에 버너에 있던 불이...