All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant (unfair sentencing)’s punishment (an amount of KRW 3 million) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) Fact-finding misunderstanding (the fire prevention of general goods) is sufficient to prove the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of fire at each fire site at the time of the charge.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. On July 30, 2015, the Defendant: (a) opened a warning pole installed at the entrance transfer at the air transport information and communication entrance of Gwangju Mine-gu (hereinafter “instant street lamps”) around 20:46, around July 30, 2015, the Defendant: (b) laid the door of the street lamps installed in the air transport information and communication entrance of Gwangju Mine-gu (hereinafter “instant street lamps”); and (c) laid the door in the inner part and laid down the light by inserting a fire, thereby making the lights spread to the street lamps.

As a result, the Defendant destroyed the fire by burning all one of the street lamps with an amount equivalent to KRW 8.36 million in the market price managed by the old mine office.

B) On July 30, 2015, around 21:42, the Defendant: (a) opened a traffic signal control device installed in Gwangju Mine-dong 1185 India (hereinafter “instant traffic signal control device”); and (b) attached a fire to the inner part of the control device, and made it possible for the Defendant to spread to the control device such as the non-breadth signal.

Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed all traffic signal control units with an amount of 6,160,000 won managed by the Gwangju Regional Police Agency.

2) In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, sufficiently proven that the Defendant destroyed the instant street lamps and traffic signal control devices to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Defendant destroyed them.

It is difficult to see

The decision was determined.

The court below erred by misapprehending the circumstances stated in the court below.