Each judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (i) misunderstanding of facts (the point of ordinary vehicle fire in the first judgment) does not have any evidence as to the act of the Defendant, which the Defendant attached a fire to the instant vehicle, and there is no evidence as to how to attach a fire in any way, and the credibility of the Defendant’s statement as to the fact that the Defendant collected a incombustible object through the front left glass window behind the front being left cannot be acknowledged.

The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of unfair sentencing to the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor’s sentence (one year of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) sentenced by the second instance court on the accused is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. The first judgment case and the second judgment case against the defendant were consolidated in the judgment of ex officio. Each of the above concurrent cases against the defendant is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and one punishment should be imposed in accordance with Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, each judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined that, according to the description of the written statement prepared by V, field pictures, and the results of field identification, the Defendant destroyed the vehicle by putting the vehicle into a string window behind the victim’s string window after attaching a fire to the string of the string window.

B. In light of the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating the credibility of the testimony of the witness at the first instance court of relevant legal doctrine, the first instance court’s content and the first instance court’s duly examined evidence in light of the purport and spirit of the substantial direct and psychological principle adopted by the Korean Criminal Procedure Act.