The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Although the Defendant intentionally committed a fire to the instant house, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of the facts charged.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In the lower court’s determination on the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant alleged the same as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, based on this, explained in detail the relevant facts and circumstances under the title “the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion” and on this basis, even though there is no direct evidence to prove the Defendant’s crime of fire prevention, it can be recognized that the Defendant intentionally committed the crime of fire prevention.

The above argument was rejected.

In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the part that the beauty room operated by the "L" of the court below is not seen as the above beauty room on the inside and outside of the official entrance of the instant house in the opposite direction of the instant house and the front door of the instant house, and it is somewhat inappropriate for the court below to determine the circumstances of the beauty room in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence: (a) the above determination by the court below is just, and there is a error of misapprehending the legal principles as alleged by the defendant, or by misapprehending the legal principles.

subsection (b) of this section.

Even if the public entrance door of the instant house shows some inside and outside of the beauty room operated by L, and the Defendant was not the official entrance of the instant house, but the back fence in order to avoid L.