The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) is as follows: (a) around 02:08:02 on March 3, 2013, the Defendant: (b) opened the instant fire site; (c) opened his house to the alley; (d) opened one minute 20,09:30 thereafter; and (e) made a statement that the Defendant was unable to be found to possess a group at the fire site of this case until he entered the alley road; and (e) made a statement that he did not have any group at the fire site of this case; (b) the Defendant collected species, etc. for 27 seconds (0:06:28 through 07:55) from the CCTV screen, and turned it into a bridge; and (c) the Defendant’s relocation to the Ortoba in this case had been considerably involved from around 202:02 to around 208:30, and there was no possibility that another person would have been able to intervene in the CCTV screen to the extent that he had his house.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is difficult to eliminate the possibility of fire prevention of another person is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined: (1) around 02:06:28 on March 3, 2013, 2013, immediately before the instant fire occurred; (2) around 02:06:28, the Defendant walked to the scene of the fire; (3) on around 02:07:55, 1 minute 27 seconds turned to the alley of the Defendant’s house; and (4) on around 02:08:02, 7 seconds later, the head of the household came to the alley of the Defendant; and (4) on the alleys following the end of the instant accident, the Defendant turned to the alley of the Defendant’s house; (2) from around 02:09:30, the first half of the instant fire, from around 28 seconds to the end of the instant accident, the shape of the fire was confirmed on the CCTV screen (not directly taken to the CCTV; and (4) at the time of reporting the fact that the Defendant was found to have recovered around the scene of the fire.)