The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the statement, etc. by the witness C of the first instance trial of the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though it is possible to fully find the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the first instance court which rejected

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is around 1:00 on May 4, 2012, the Defendant’s melting side from the modern department store U.S. and the second floor toilet located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, about 315.

On the part of the Defendant Company reported the suspension of a stop, it caused public danger by putting his mind that he would want to attach a cigarette to the Defendant Company’s fence, attaching a fire to the suspension of a cigarette, setting the stop to a plastic, setting the stop on the plastic, setting the fire, and making the stop spread to the toilet and the upper floor of the building.

B. The first instance court's decision on the facts charged in this case 1) 1) the witness C's legal statement and each police's statement about C and D, which correspond to the facts charged in this case, reversed the previous statements made by the police in the court of first instance, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case : ① D reversed the previous statements made by the police in the court of first instance; ② there is no photograph showing that the suspension or suspension site was caused by plastic or toilet walls even during the process of submitting fire-scams, and there is no circumstance in which the suspension site was submitted as evidence. Thus, it is contrary to the empirical rule to collect relatively less important evidence in the process of collecting the evidence immediately after the crime, and ③ it was found that the police initially stated that "the suspension or suspension site is attached and postponed," and it was inconsistent with the statement made in the court of first instance as stated in the court of first instance.