The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months, and by imprisonment for not more than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A 1) In fact, the instant building, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles, is not the main building used by the person as a residence, but the Defendant did not have an intention to prevent the present building, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the fact that the lower court convicted the Defendant of the fire of the present main building.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C (unfair sentencing) The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined as to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as follows: (i) although the instant building was “factory building” based on evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court constituted “office” and the left-hand side of the building as “class house”; (ii) there were several tools necessary for human life, such as bed, fluor, fluor, electricity board, television, and sick, etc.; and (iii) around August 2013, K was a member of the “J” operated in the instant building, and went away on January 1, 2014; (iv) even after having obtained I’s approval, K was able to see that it was 15 days away on the day of the instant building’s life in the front-hand house; and (v) K was able to see that it was 15 days away on the day of the instant building’s death on the 1st day after his death.