The accused shall publicly announce the summary of the judgment of innocence against the accused.

1. On November 29, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 05:10 on the 3rd floor of the building in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, caused public danger by setting fire to the main body and monitors of the said computer on the restaurant, while putting D and D’s main body and monitors on the Defendant and D’s living together with the Defendant on the 3rd floor at the 3rd floor of the building in Daegu-gu.

2. The summary of the defendant's and his/her defense counsel's assertion is consistent with the act recorded in the facts charged, but it cannot be deemed that public danger has occurred due to the defendant's act, and there was no awareness about

3. The crime of fire-fighting of general goods under Article 167(1) of the Criminal Act refers to a specific danger that infringes on life, body, or property of an unspecified person or a large number of unspecified persons, as a provision punishing a person who causes "public danger" by setting fire to general goods.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12947 Decided January 14, 2010). In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone constituted a concrete danger of infringing on life, body, or property of an unspecified or large number of unspecified persons due to the Defendant’s act, i.e., the Defendant was married inside the above restaurant at the time of setting the fire, and the Defendant’s own fire was not likely to have moved or moved to other things except the computer body and monitor that the Defendant left the fire.

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, they are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325.