1. The lower court acknowledged that each of the instant fire was fire-fighting by means of field identification results, factual inquiries, replies, statements, etc. to the effect that there was no inflammable materials, fire handling facilities, etc. at the point of the outbreak of each of the instant fire, and there was no possibility of naturalation, such as electrically abnormal, etc., and that the fire site is a place where a person other than a resident could not interfere with the prevention of fire. According to the closed circuit television images around each of the instant fire sites, following the Defendant’s occurrence of fire immediately after the occurrence of the fire. On March 4, 2014, a third party, other than the Defendant, who was exposed to the images immediately after the occurrence of the fire, did not have any relation to the fire, in light of the visual view and attitudes surrounding the fire site, and the Defendant could reasonably be found guilty in view of the fact that no other person has access to the fire site until a fire occurred after entering each of the buildings on November 26, 2014.

The judgment of the first instance court which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty was affirmed as it is.

2. As to this, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol at the time of the occurrence of each of the instant fire, was not in the scene of the fire at the time of the occurrence of the fire, and there was no motive to prevent the fire. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes.

The argument is asserted.

3. However, even if examining evidence, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.