A. misunderstanding of facts: The Defendant laid a fire within one’s fridge, and confirmed that a fire was not destroyed due to the Defendant’s negligence, since the franchis were destroyed by a franchisium near the franchisect of J, and the franchis were no longer destroyed by a franchisium, and the fire was not caused by the Defendant’s negligence.

B. Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence of the lower judgment (two million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court also argued that the Defendant had the same purport as the allegation of mistake of facts in the judgment of the lower court, and as to this, the lower court discussed that: (a) the Defendant appeared to have been witnessed the victim’s argument within 20 to 30 minutes of the fire site after leaving the fire site of this case (at the time of this case, H was on the fire site of this case, at the time of the fire site of this case, left the said site and opened the said site to Do newsletter; (b) the time during which H arrived at the house was arrived at 12 cc; and (c) the distance from the site of this case to the village of H’s house (Y) via the bus stop at the village of the instant site of this case at 11:30 days after leaving the said site (H was on the 15:15 of the day of this case to 10 to 210:21 of the police site of this case).

(2) In light of the fact that the fire that occurred in the arguments of the victim was the first witness by I at around 12:02 on the day of the instant case, and that the fire that occurred in the field of the instant case was the shape that the victim was born from the sloping trees adjacent to agricultural and fishery roads in the vicinity of the sloping between the parties of J to the issue of the case, and that the fire that occurred in the discussion of the said victim was the type that started from the sloping trees to the sloping trees on the side of J, the victim is located in the vicinity of the mulberry trees adjacent to