The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

For once seized strings.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding of facts.

1) Unscheduled section of public structure and fire prevention: The Defendant of the Seoul East East District Court 2018 High Court 2018 High Court 356 case is the male toilet No. 21 column (hereinafter “the toilet”).

2) On the part concerning obstruction of business: The Defendant of the Seoul Eastern District Court 2018Kahap381 did not enter a restaurant operated by the victim D, even though he did not smoked, and caused a fire by a misunderstanding as a dynas. (2) The part concerning obstruction of business with intent to prevent fire:

3) The theft portion of the lower judgment against the victim G, U, S, T, V, R, Q,O, and N is the larceny portion indicated in annexed Table 1 through 9: Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2019Gohap8: the Defendant simply carried out the goods of the victim G, U, S, T, V, V, and R in order to attract people's interest, and the Defendant had the goods of the victim Q in the AK 3 AK convenience store. Therefore, there was no intention of larceny or illegal acquisition. The Defendant did not have any intention of illegal acquisition because he had been aware of the victim N's new winding route. The Defendant did not have any intention of larceny since he had been aware of the victim N's new winding route, and there was no intention of larceny to return it to the Seoul East Eastern District Court. 4) The Defendant did not have any intention of larceny to return it to the victim J. 2019.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the defendant's grounds for appeal as to admissibility of the police interrogation protocol prior to the judgment on the admissibility of evidence.

The lower court’s judgment on the summary column of evidence and the part concerning interference with business, which is the charge of the Seoul Eastern District Court 2018 Gohap381, is the police against the Defendant.