A. Although the Defendant alleged a mistake of facts did not damage the street trees by using the instant fire, and discovered a fire and suppose it, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced to the defendant (2 million won a penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal as to the above part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected this decision.

The court below acknowledged the following circumstances based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., whether a public official E who was dispatched after receiving a report on the site of this case dices the Defendant.

1. The Defendant made a reply by asking “Is that I had not reported” (E is reasonable to deem that the above hearsay statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances) and how Is if you are on board without such permission.

“No answer is made to the question; ② in the court of the court below, the witness F refers to the defendant who was at the F’s site “Is the answer.”

“In the event of being asked, the Defendant did not make any speech.”

In full view of the fact that the Defendant’s words and actions at the time of the instant case cannot be deemed to be “a person who finds and turns out the fire,” and even if the Defendant had been engaged in the work to extinguish the fire of this case with F last F, considering the above contents of the Defendant’s above statement, it can be recognized that the Defendant damaged the street trees by attaching fire as stated in the judgment of the lower court, and thus, the lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and contrary to the Defendant’s assertion, it is so decided as per Disposition by misapprehending the facts.