The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On January 8, 2014, the Defendant did not operate a valve upon the suspension of gas supply and the closure of the valve.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (1.5 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (i) The lower court also asserted that the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of fact was the same as the grounds for appeal for mistake of fact.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the instant supply discontinuance was destroyed.

[Recognition of Recognition]

A. The suspension of the supply of this case does not destroy unless a considerable physical force is extinguished. The suspension of the supply of this case was destroyed on the date of establishment of the closure.

Therefore, despite the risk of gas explosion, it is reasonable to regard the person who destroyed the gas supply system with considerable physical strength immediately after the suspension of the supply of this case is established as a person who has direct interest in the gas supply system for the defendant's house.

B. On or before January 8, 2014, the Defendant used gas without permission, even though an employee of the relevant light impulse urban gas gas company (hereinafter “inception company”) established the suspension of supply due to the nonperformance of urban gas charges.

(c)

On January 8, 2014, the Defendant called “F, an employee of a company that filed a complaint, saying, “I see whether I will close down and use a course to which supply will be suspended,” and the Defendant said, “F would be able to cut down the absolute supply suspension on his hand.”

D. In the above judgment of the court below, the Defendant’s destruction of the gas supply suspension of the instant case to the Defendant did not have good appraisal.