The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel (the fact-finding) that the Defendant could not be held liable for the instant fire, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case, on the ground that the Defendant could not be held liable for the instant fire, on the ground that there were two hours after the Defendant incinerated garbage and leaving the scene, and there was a dispute that can be developed with the prevention of fire on the day of the instant case, and that the statement of the fire officer and the fire officer with a sense of view to the fire site was low

2. According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence adopted and examined by the first instance court, i.e., (i) the possibility of fire due to the Defendant’s waste incineration, other than the possibility of fire due to the Defendant’s waste incineration; (ii) the fire or the possibility of fire due to the Defendant’s fire can not be ruled out; and (iii) the view that the Defendant’s first place of fire was the place where the Defendant stated to the effect that there was a fire to the effect that the fire was burned out of the place where the Defendant made a witness’s first place of fire was destroyed by a considerable time after the waste incineration (17:0) and the first place where the fire was burned (19:10). In light of the foregoing, the heat source and the first place where the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the fire was burned out of the witness’s first place where the Defendant made a statement to the effect that it was difficult to view the witness’s first place where the fire was incinerated.