The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant committed a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles that led to the fire prevention of this case by the Defendant, which led to a mistake of facts and that there was no fire at the time of the occurrence of public danger, and there was no intention on the fact that the Defendant destroyed the said fence and the gate by setting fire, thereby causing public danger. However, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the charges by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The court below's decision on the grounds of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months) is too unreasonable.

2. Progression of litigation and scope of adjudication of this court; and

A. A. The prosecutor of the lawsuit brought a prosecution against the Defendant as Seoul Southern District Court 201Da415, which was the general crime of fire prevention, and the lower court found the Defendant guilty, sentenced the Defendant to the confiscation of six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution, one year of seizure, and one log for seizure, etc., and appealed against this.

In the trial prior to remand, the prosecutor had maintained the initial charge and applied for the permission of alteration of indictment to add the phrase “the general goods fire-fighting” to the name of the crime in question, “Article 167(2) and Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act” to the applicable provisions of the Act, and “Article 167(2) and Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act” to the ancillary charges (the initial charge was the primary charge, since the prosecutor added the ancillary charges in the trial), and the judgment of the court prior to remand was reversed ex officio after granting the permission. The judgment of the court below was reversed, and even if there was no intention of the defendant to commit the general goods fire-fighting (the primary charge) and the general goods fire-fighting (the preliminary charge) owned by him, even if there was an intentional negligence on the part of the defendant, the act of fire-fighting of the general goods in this case was committed as attempted crimes.