A. In light of the fact that the Defendant did not detect inflammable substances at the scene of the instant fire, such as burning residues, floor floor, and fireproof bottom, and the Defendant’s fire prevention method was not specified in the facts charged in the instant case, the fact that the Defendant setting fire to K located in the F Museum cannot be recognized.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (two years of imprisonment) by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The lower court determined that the Defendant was guilty by taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts: (a) there was no person approaching the instant fire building except the Defendant before and after the instant fire; (b) there was no natural combustion factor in the instant fire building; (c) there was inflammable substances in the Defendant’s body and clothes, etc.; and (d) the Defendant reported that he was fire immediately after the instant fire; and (c) the Defendant recognized the Defendant’s motive for fire prevention by sending text messages suggesting the fire, etc., by taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the Defendant.

In addition to the circumstances acknowledged by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and erroneous in matters of law, and the defendant has no errors in matters of law, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., residual substances collected at the fire site of this case, floor floor, and inflammable substances were not detected at the fire site of this case, but the National Science Investigation Institute has presented its opinion that the inflammable substances may not be detected from the burners if they are burned completely or discharged completely due to strong volatileness.