The part concerning the crime No. 1, 2, and 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the part not guilty for the reason) and the judgment of the court of second instance.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor 1) misunderstanding of the legal doctrine (the part not guilty in the judgment of the court of first instance) Article 3 of the Automobile Management Act provides that the type of motor vehicle includes a luto (motor vehicle).

Although the Criminal Law does not define the concept of motor vehicle, since the concept of motor vehicle is defined in accordance with the provisions of the Automobile Management Act, the concept of motor vehicle should be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of the Automobile Management Act.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the act of the defendant's act of causing Obane as shown in the facts charged constitutes a general automobile fire prevention crime under Article 166 (1) of the Criminal Act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The sentence sentenced to the first instance judgment (as to the crimes set forth in the holding 3: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 months, with prison labor for 1, 2, and 4 as to the crimes set forth in the holding 2 months, with prison labor for 10 months, with prison labor for 10 months) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The Defendant (the Defendant of the first and second judgment indicated in the grounds of appeal against the second judgment on the grounds of mental and physical loss or mental weakness as to the grounds of appeal, but the Defendant and his/her defense counsel stated the second judgment on the date of the second trial on the grounds of sentencing only on the grounds of an unfair appeal. As such, the Defendant and his/her defense counsel stated that the second judgment on the grounds of sentencing was on the grounds of an unfair appeal, the mental

B. A review of the record reveals that even if the Defendant was a disabled person of Grade II at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions, taking into account the motive, process, means and method of the crime, the attitude and circumstances of the Defendant before and after the instant crime.

It is difficult to see it.

The sentence sentenced by the court below (the judgment of the court below No. 1): the above.

The judgment of the court below 2: a fine of 1.5 million won is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination (No. 1.)