The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, at least, even if the Defendant had dolusent intent to prevent the present building and fire.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

2. Determination

A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone had the intention to commit fire to the present building and fire, with the detailed reasoning for the judgment in the “not guilty part

B. In order to establish the crime of attempted fire-prevention of the present building, there must be an intentional act of setting fire to the structure, etc. that people present, which is the same as in the instant case, and it shall be deemed that the same applies in the case of ignition through media as in the instant case. In this case, unless the Defendant does not make a confession, the intention of fire-prevention should be determined by comprehensively taking into account all objective circumstances and circumstances such as the motive, process, means, method, and mode of the case, the Defendant’s speech and behavior before and after the crime was committed,

Furthermore, the subjective element of the constituent element of a crime refers to the case where the possibility of occurrence of a crime is uncertain and it is acceptable as it is declared to do so. The possibility of occurrence of a crime is recognized in order to have dolusent intent, as well as the internal intent to allow the risk of occurrence of a crime. Whether or not an actor has permitted the possibility of occurrence of a crime must be determined by considering how the general public can assess the possibility of occurrence of a crime based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of an act and the situation of an act performed outside, rather than depending on the statement of the offender, rather than on the statement of the offender.