The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to open a visit by loss the key of the instant fire on the date of the instant fire, the Defendant: (a) saw a string tobacco, such as a newspaper paper attached to the visit in order to smoke; (b) as above, the type of the fire removed was frighten and frightened; and (c) the fire of this case, attached to the above paper, was destroyed by the Defendant’s loss; and (d) the fire of this case was caused by the fire of this case, and there was no intentional fire prevention by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant had intention to prevent fire and sentenced him guilty, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Determination:

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge on the ground that, in full view of the circumstances as indicated in the lower judgment’s reasoning acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the Defendant intentionally attached a fire to the visit and sufficiently recognized the fire-prevention fact.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant, so the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing is a case where the defendant destroyed the wall and roof of the said detached house and its accessory house by attaching a fire to the visit of the said detached house that he leased, and the crime of fire prevention is a very dangerous criminal who is detrimental to public safety and peace and may cause a serious loss of human life or a big property loss, and the defendant denies the crime of this case and did not recover the damage of the residents who suffered damage due to a fire.