The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. 1) As to the attempted fire-prevention of existing buildings, there was only a misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles concerning the Defendant’s attempt to commit the crime of attempted fire-prevention with C, and there was no intention to commit fire-prevention. Nevertheless, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in recognizing the Defendant’s liability to commit the crime of attempted fire-prevention of existing buildings. 2) Although the Defendant argued with C about the damage of property, there was only a little attempt to take the cell phone from the cell phone, there was no lack of a misunderstanding of facts or a misunderstanding of legal principles.

C It was only damaged by his/her own mobile phone in the course of physical fighting with the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant's cell phone cutting off the C's cell phone and damaged it is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated in the lower court’s determination as to the Defendant’s assertion that there was no intention to prevent a fire on the part of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it is determined that the Defendant, even though at least did not have been aware of the risk of a fire that would have been destroyed by his own act at the time of the crime in this part, he could have

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted, since the defendant's willful negligence on fire prevention is recognized.

(1) The Defendant attempted to attach two times immediately before the instant crime was committed.

In other words, at around 2:20 on May 25, 2015, the Defendant sought to put two punishments on the front of the entrance and the bottom of the stairs in the multi-household that C had resided in around 2:20, and immediately after the dispute with C, the Defendant tried to put up two punishments on the sports clothes under the front of the entrance and the stairs.