The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and a fine of KRW 5,00,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the prevention of a misunderstanding of facts, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the fact that the defendant destroyed the house by attaching a fire to the case is sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor examined the facts charged of general buildings and fire-prevention which the court below acquitted as the primary facts charged, while maintaining the name of the crime as "realization", applicable provisions of law as "Articles 170 (1) and 167 (1) of the Criminal Act", and applied for amendments to indictment as stated below (the ancillary facts added at the trial). The prosecutor applied for amendments to indictment as stated below, and this court permitted this.

Since the subject of the judgment of the court is changed, the acquittal part of the judgment of the court can no longer be maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts on the general structure and fire prevention, which is the primary charge, is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in paragraph (3) below.

[Preliminary facts added at the trial] Around 03:10 on March 29, 2019, the Defendant: (a) laid down all the above housing units worth KRW 30,500,000 of the market price owned by the victim E owned by the Defendant himself/herself residing in the above house; and (b) laid down all the above housing units worth KRW 30,50,000 on the part of the victim E-owned by the Defendant, when the Defendant was not fully able to exercise due care to prevent a cigarette smoking from being moved to the surrounding area, while the Defendant was able to smoked at the Defendant’s house located in Yangsi-si B in order to smoke.

Ultimately, the defendant is a victim E. by the above negligence.