A. Defendant 1) The Defendant had no intention to commit a fire to the present building.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking into account the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court by asserting the Defendant’s factual misunderstanding, namely, the background leading up to the instant crime, the details that the Defendant stated to a police officer immediately after the instant crime, the location of the Defendant’s flooding fire, and the degree of the impact on the wall, etc., it may be recognized that the Defendant had an incomplete intention to prevent the present building at least at the time of the instant crime.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below contains no error of law by misunderstanding the facts pointed out by the defendant, and thus the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. The crime of this case committed by the defendant and prosecutor was committed during the period of suspension of execution, and the nature of the crime was also poor, while the defendant committed a crime of this case, and the owner of the building did not have any substantial damage because of the early extinguishment of his mental and physical weakness, and the fire was applied to the defendant, and the owner of the building seems to have been under continuous mental treatment, the defendant's mistake is against the defendant, his relative or person is pursuing the defendant's preference against the defendant, and the defendant's child or person is seeking the defendant's preference to the defendant, and the court below's punishment against the defendant based on the conditions of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, sexual behavior, environment, criminal record, etc., which were revealed in the records and changes theory, it is not recognized that the punishment imposed by the court below is too heavy or unreasonable. Thus, each of the defendant and prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. The appeal filed by the Defendant and the Prosecutor is with merit.