The Defendant has publicly notified the summary of the judgment of innocence of this case.

On November 16, 2010, the Defendant, at around 21:07, 21:07, turned on a portable gas siren that is located in the front of a toilet in front of a toilet at a steel storage point, and made a fire spread to the ceiling by attaching a fire to an explosive by a shot gas.

Therefore, the defendant, who was kept in a steel store, destroyed the building owned by E in excess of 40 million won in total to cause public danger by disposing of goods equivalent to the market value of the defendant's ownership, and at the same time, destroyed the building in excess of 18 million won in total.

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case on the ground that, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s fire was caused to the extent that the CCTV would be reduced to the fire and several seconds after the point of iron, there was no trace of other intrusion; and (b) the Defendant’s fire could not be caused by the intrusion of any group after the point of time; (c) there was no proviso to deem the fire to have occurred due to the fire; (d) if the fire was issued due to the fire, it would not be possible for the Defendant to become aware of the fire; and (e) according to the result of the identification on the fire site, it appears that there were no other causes of fire other than the possibility of the fire by artificially setting a portable gas siren, as described in the facts charged, in view of the fact that the Defendant could have acknowledged the fact that the fire was destroyed as stated in the facts charged.

3. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding and misunderstanding of legal principles (1) The Defendant did not intentionally cause a mistake.

(2) The Defendant committed a crime of fire by putting in place “unclaimed things”.