The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) shall not be taken out of the coal that the defendant was in the blank of coal;

Although the court below found the defendant not guilty of the facts charged, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts.

2. Determination:

A. An ex officio decision-making prosecutor shall keep the facts charged against the injury resulting from fire of the present main building as the primary facts charged, and shall apply the name of the crime as “realization”, “Article 170(1) and Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act” as “Article 170(1) and Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act,” and applied the following facts charged to the amendment of a bill of amendment which adds the same contents as the stated “criminal facts” to the facts charged. Since this Court changed its subject to adjudication by permitting it, the judgment of the court below

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. The lower court determined the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of fact: (a) the Defendant’s statement made to an investigative agency is insufficient to take the Defendant’s grounds for conviction as it denies the intention of fire prevention; and (b) the witness I’s “In the event of the on-site dispatch, E was found to have been on the part of the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant was

The statement is inadmissible, and ③ according to the on-site photographs, housing structure drawings, and the diagnosis report, the fact that E was taken in an unfolded state and that E was taken on the front of the day of this case, but this fact alone is not sufficient to protect the defendant by intention.

Considering that it is not enough to recognize it, the facts charged against the injury caused by fire of the present building were pronounced not guilty.

A thorough examination of the evidence of this case in light of the records, the court below's determination of not guilty on the basis of the above evidence judgment is just and acceptable, and it is so argued by the prosecutor.