The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

A. In this case’s fire under a misunderstanding of Facts, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of this case’s error in misunderstanding of facts, even though it did not have any intention to cause public danger by setting fire at the time, there was an error in the misunderstanding of facts, even though the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of this case’s charges.

B. In consideration of various circumstances on the defendant's grounds of unfair sentencing, the sentence imposed by the court below (one year of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, the prosecutor's prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by authority, "general goods and fire-fighting" in the name of the crime, "Article 167 (2) and Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the applicable provisions of the Act, and "Article 167 (2) and Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act" in the applicable provisions of the Act, each of the main points of the ancillary facts charged as stated in the facts charged was requested to amend the indictment, and since this court permitted this (as the prosecutor added the ancillary facts charged at the trial, the original facts charged were the primary facts charged) it cannot be maintained

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the argument of misunderstanding of facts about the primary facts charged by the defendant is still subject to the judgment of this court, and since the ancillary facts charged (general goods fire prevention) and the primary facts charged are only the objects of fire, it will also be examined as well as the primary and primary facts charged.

3. Judgment on the primary and conjunctive charges

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case (i.e., ordinary goods and fire prevention) is as follows.