The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the course of the investigation and the court of the court below, Defendant B stated that Defendant B instigated the prevention of fire around October 2013. Since the above statement has a concrete and consistent credibility, the facts charged against the current building and fire prevention teachers against Defendant B can be fully recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B not guilty of the facts charged against Defendant B, and it erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The court below acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged in relation to the crime of fire-fighting of the main building and the main building of this case (not guilty part of Defendant A in the judgment of the court below) on the ground that there was no supporting evidence for Defendant A’s confession, and thus, the court below acquitted Defendant A of the facts charged in relation to the crime of fire-fighting of the main building and the main building of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court rendered a statement (A’s legal statement and the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against A) that led to the confession of this part of the facts charged among the facts charged in the instant case that support the fact of Defendant B’s present building and fire prevention teachers or that the prosecutor submitted and submitted for proof and adopted as evidence. In full view of the circumstances in its reasoning, it is difficult to believe that A’s statement that led to the confession of this part of the facts charged was in fact and there is no other evidence to prove this part of the facts charged, and sentenced Defendant B not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that there is no other evidence to prove this part of the facts charged. 2) The lower court’s judgment is just and acceptable, and this part of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the court’