A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: As to the fact that the present building and fire reserve, the Defendant cited a straw to smoke tobacco, but did not intend to prevent a straw with a stalter.

또 피고인은 스스로 가스밸브를 잠궜는바 피고인에게 현주건조물방화예비의 고의가 있었다고 볼 수도 없다.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts, although the court below acknowledged the defendant as having had the intention to make preparations with the present owner's structure and fire prevention.

B. The lower court’s sentence (one hundred months of imprisonment, etc.) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the judgment of the court below and the court below as to the assertion that there was no preliminary act of setting fire to the 1st main building, which were lawfully adopted and investigated by the evidence, namely, the defendant, at the time of the crime, was well aware of the gas string connected to the gas string at the time of committing the crime, requested a police officer dispatched to the scene to rent strings and to have a brings, wanting to have a brings and telephone conversations with a police officer, and then made a call from the police officer using the brings and handphones from the police officer, and said call was called as "gas snrings, gas brings, and gas brings." The defendant used a bringer as above, and the police officer dispatched to the scene was likely to have been exposed to a bringing gas from the gas string, following the defendant's video-related accident.