As to each of the crimes described in paragraphs 3 through 12 of the crime sight table in the judgment of the defendant.

A. Regarding paragraph 1(1) (the part against which the Defendant was indicted due to the crime of fire, etc. of the present main building) of the list of crimes attached to the Defendant, the object of the Defendant’s setting fire refers to a house which is simple to the field near the field of dry field so that people can easily straw up a farming shed used for their residence.

The defendant was not aware that he was a scambling building, or that he was a scambling building.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the liability for the crime of fire prevention of the present building as to this part of the facts charged is erroneous or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The defendant and his defense counsel did not regard the sentencing as the ground for appeal through the statement of reasons for appeal, and the court appealed only on the ground of misunderstanding the legal principles of fact at the first trial date, and stated to the effect that the sentencing is not an unfair ground for appeal.

Accordingly, this court is to judge only the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles of facts.

B. A prosecutor 1) In the event that the present building and the general building are destroyed by fire which differs from the provisions applicable to one fire-prevention act, such as a series No. 1 of the crime sight table of the facts charged in this case, the crime of fire-prevention of the present building and the crime of fire-prevention of the general building are all established (Provided, That these crimes are only punishable by the punishment prescribed for the crime of fire-prevention of the present main building, which is a serious crime, in a commercial concurrent relationship with each other). Nevertheless, the court below held that the crime of fire-prevention of the present main building was punished for the most severe crime, and found the defendant not guilty as to the crime of fire-prevention of the general building.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the number of crimes of fire prevention.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment and one year and six months of imprisonment) is unreasonable as it is excessively unhutiled.

2. We examine ex officio the reasons for ex officio appeal due to changes in indictment.

On September 14, 2018, a prosecutor has reached this court, among the facts charged in this case.