A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) The Defendant placed a string between the driver's seat and the chief of the string to find a mobile phone and put a fire. Since the Defendant's misunderstanding that the Defendant's fighting was done by the Defendant and misunderstanding that the Defendant's fighting was done, the Defendant did not have any intention to prevent fire at the time of the instant case, and the Defendant did not have any intention to commit a fire, and the string was carried out well, and the vehicle floor in the instant judgment is composed of two rubbers, and the vehicle's strings is also linked to the vehicle's strings, and even if the Defendant attached the strings inside the vehicle, it does not reach the state of combustion, it cannot be deemed that there was commencement of the crime of fire prevention.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. In full view of the following circumstances as to whether the Defendant had the intent to prevent fire, the lower court’s determination can sufficiently recognize that the Defendant was under the back seat and the bottom of the driver’s seat of the vehicle that caused an intentional fire at the time of the instant crime.

1. In police and this Court, the victim consistently stated that, while stating that the Defendant “Down,” the Defendant was able to write off the name in the vehicle, by putting the name in the vehicle, and that the incombustible name was under the direction of the victim who was seated in the rear seat and the driver’s seat on the vehicle, and that the statement is credibility in the statement because there is no reason to make a false statement in the circumstance agreed with the Defendant.

② At the time of issuing an order, the Defendant was in a state of interest by hearing the Defendant’s speech to the effect that he would not engage in the same business as the victim was unable to do so.

(3) If it is difficult to find a mobile phone because the vehicle proposal has been kept and it was difficult to find a mobile phone, it is impossible to issue a name because it turns on the interior of the vehicle or the route possessed by the defendant.