The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Inasmuch as there was no intention of fire prevention, the charge of this case should be recognized as a crime of fire prevention, not a crime of fire prevention.

② Even if the Defendant’s act was recognized as a crime of fire prevention, the Defendant first fell by the instant sperm, and thus there was no intention to fire the said sperm. The instant sperm fall under “a structure” not “a structure” but “goods” under the Criminal Act, and thus, the Defendant’s act ought to be regarded as a crime of fire prevention of general goods, not a crime of fire prevention of public structures.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the charge of the fire prevention of the public structure of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

In light of various sentencing conditions in this case, the punishment sentenced by the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In regard to the assertion that a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles should be recognized as a crime of fire-fighting (the assertion that there was no intention of fire-fighting), the lower court also argued to the same effect as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and the lower court, which was proceeding with the citizen participation trial, found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by adopting the jury's unanimous verdict of conviction, and rejected the Defendant's assertion.

As a subjective element of the elements of the legal composition of the legal doctrine related to the judgment of this court, it refers to the case where the possibility of the occurrence of the crime is expressed to be uncertain and it is acceptable to do so, and there was an incomplete intention.

In order to do so, there is not only awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of the crime, but also there is an internal intent to permit the risk of the crime, and whether the offender allowed the possibility of the crime, or not, is the statement of the offender.