The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are as follows. Since the Defendant used the chemical scoods as recorded in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant scoods”) in the warehouse of the prefabricated position panel, and stored water in the said warehouse, there is no breach of duty of care for the Defendant, and it cannot be deemed that the fire on the facts charged that occurred more than 10 hours after this did not have occurred due to the Defendant’s breach of duty of care. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case, or erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The court below's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles can be found based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, i.e., (1) the first witness N (the defendant's first fire fighting point stated to the effect that it was a warehouse; (2) it is difficult to see that the cause of fire fighting was electrical factors because it was an OF state, which is a power supply system for the warehouse at the time of a fire, and there is no other circumstance to recognize the causes of fire, fire, machinery, gas leakage, etc.; (3) on the other hand, it is necessary to examine whether the defendant used the instant column from a warehouse at the P.M. on the day before the occurrence of the fire to the point of the fire, and (4) immediately after the fire, there was a hole in the inner part of the warehouse after the fire, and there was a hole in the inner part of the warehouse after the fire, and the bottom of the warehouse at the time of the fire dy, and it seems that the bottom of this case was considerably lost due to a fire.