A. 1. Fact-finding 1. The intention of the fire prevention to the defendant of the present main building was only the intention of fire prevention against the general goods to load the paper, and there was no intention of fire prevention against the present main building.

2) In full view of the fact that G, the mother of the victim's ideology and the possibility of prediction, did not take appropriate measures despite discovering a fire, and that the victim E, the father, attempted to actively extinguish a fire and attempted to extinguish the fire, and that the victim E, the father, attempted to extinguish the fire in an erroneous manner, thereby causing a greater degree of toxicity postponement, and that the victim F, as the result of the extension into a residential area, was the victim's accident, was the result of the victim's e-F's gross negligence, and the victim E-and F's gross negligence was involved in G and E, and thus, the victim's act was related to the victim's fire prevention.

Now, there is a possibility that the injury of the victim F may be predicted.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case.

B. The Defendant, who was suffering from spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathics

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion to the same effect as this in the judgment of the court below, the court below held that ① in order for the present state building to be established the crime of fire prevention, it does not necessarily require the result of the fire or a conclusive intention on the fire, and the structure, etc. may be destroyed by its own act.