The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Although it cannot be confirmed that the defendant directly put a fire on the part of the defendant, considering the fact that the defendant was at the D market team under the influence of alcohol at the time of the occurrence of the fire of this case and was at the place of the fire of this case, the defendant was at the place of the fire of this case 4-5 minutes after leaving the scene of the fire of this case, and that there was no person who was at the scene of the fire of this case except the defendant, the defendant could sufficiently recognize the facts charged of this case because the defendant was under the influence of alcohol by fire by the gross negligence that caused a fire to a brue with a brue or a brue with a brue, etc. before F, even though the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted him of this case was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and

2. Determination:

A. A summary of the facts charged in the instant case 1) On February 27, 2014, the Defendant destroyed approximately KRW 25 million, such as the roof, wall, gate, and gate of the instant house, and around KRW 5 million, such as the roof, wall, gate, and gate of the instant house, and around 0:39, a D market located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with a fire-fighting impulse attached a fire to a single stop for operation of E, and with the burning of rain strings and plastic containers, etc., the flames spread to a house used as a residence, and the G, etc. in F and its adjacent areas spread to the house used as a residence, and destroyed approximately KRW 25 million, such as the roof, wall, gate, and gate of the instant house, and KRW 5 million,5 million, such as the flaps (the facts charged alternatively changed) under the influence of temporary alcohol, the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s setting fire from the end of the instant D market and the flater, thereby preventing it from setting.

B. According to the following circumstances, the first instance court’s determination of the first instance court may have no reasonable doubt that the instant fire occurred due to the Defendant’s act, only the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, based on which the evidence presented by the prosecutor can be comprehensively taken into account the evidence duly adopted and investigated.