The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: 15 persons, including the persons involved in the removal company at the site of this case; 15 persons, Defendant A spreads the manager; 2. At the time, Defendant A was at the scene;

P has been aware of the fact that it was done before him.

In light of the fact that the defendant A's act committed a specific public danger, in light of the fact that there may have been danger to other persons by discharging fire attached to the outside of the maintenance center, and that the cargo vehicle is parked in the maintenance center and there is a possibility of burning the building.

must be viewed.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby causing specific danger to a large number of unspecified persons’ life, body, or property, due to Defendant A’s act.

It is difficult to conclude that Defendant B cannot be punished as a crime of fire-prevention of general goods.

2. Determination

A. On September 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) installed a pentle in front of the door to remove the H Maintenance Center in around 09:00 on September 26, 2016; and (b) caused the fire by flying the pentle to A, who is an employee of the H Maintenance Center, in order to drive away from the employees of the H Maintenance Center; and (c) told A, “I,” by speaking, “I,” “I,” for a fire-fighting crime; and (d) having A, “I, in the front of the door, spread the plle to the plle that was kept in custody to use the plos, and attach it to the plos, which was owned by the J-ray, to the plle card (3m in width and 1m in length).

2) Defendant A’s general goods fire-fighting Defendant 1’s fire-fighting at the time, time, and place specified in the foregoing paragraph (1) 1, listen to the horses “I flurine” from B, and used a so-called “I flur to flur,” which was kept in custody in order to turn off the string.