The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it is sufficient to misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, there is an error of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles, even though it is sufficiently enough to view that the Defendant’s act of causing public danger by setting fire a banner owned by the victim C

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) is deemed unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of ex officio appeal, the public prosecutor's judgment on the grounds of appeal became final and conclusive, and the public prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with regard to the prevention of a fire to banners among the facts charged in the instant case, which added the facts charged as stated below to the ancillary facts charged for the damage as stated in the following facts, and this court

As examined below, this part of the facts charged is recognized, and the facts charged with this part of the facts charged and the facts charged with the guilty portion of the judgment below are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained in its entirety.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the prosecutor's mistake and misapprehension of the legal principles on the primary facts charged still are subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

3. Determination of the Prosecutor’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine

A. On March 4, 2017, the Defendant: (a) destroyed a fire by setting fire to a publicity banner owned by the victim C Et, which was posted at a pre-owned PKabu parking lot located in Gangseo-si, Gangwon-si; and (b) caused public danger.

B. As to this part of the facts charged, the lower court is the parking lot prior to the P car service center in cases where a banner is installed, that is, the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence.