1. The guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed.

2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months;

3. Of the judgment below of the prosecutor, the prosecutor.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. A prosecutor 1) The Defendant, even though there was no conclusive intention to prevent a building, did not have dolusent perception, and the Defendant’s act of putting oil in the body that had already been commercialized and laying in a box can be seen as a preparatory act prior to the commencement of the implementation. Thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the preliminary act of setting up a structure existing among the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that he did not start the implementation of an attempt to break out, and did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, found the following facts and circumstances that were found in the first instance court to be erroneous, namely, ① the crime of preliminary fire-fighting to the existing structure should have an intention to implement fire prevention in addition to the external action as a preparatory act for the prevention of fire, and ② the lower court did not find the Defendant not guilty of the preliminary action for the fire-fighting of the existing structure among the instant facts charged on the ground that the lower court did not start the implementation of the attempt to extinguish the fire, but did not intend to implement the fire prevention against the Defendant.

It is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was acquitted on the grounds that it is difficult to conclude it, and ③ The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, even before the victim arrives at the site of this case, who was in the influence of alcohol, left the clothes, and was waiting for the victim with the panty only after being discharged from the clothes.

The Defendant appears to have been trying to keep inflammable substances away from the beginning, considering that tobacco and laz were not in the clothes off, but in the separate lazbles. ④ When the Defendant arrived at the site of this case, the Defendant was only panty in the state of having panty.