The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty of eight million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Defendant, at the time of discovery, was aware of the fact-finding 1, was deprived of awareness and was frightened in the balon charging line with the Handphone, and was exposed to the snick, so the Defendant could fully recognize that there was an intentional fire-fighting on the residential building.

However, the court below held that the intention of fire prevention cannot be recognized, and judged not guilty of the attempted crime of fire prevention of the present-ju building, which is the primary charge among the facts charged in this case, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The above sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. The prosecutor of the amendment to the indictment, while maintaining the fact that the present state building, which was the primary charge that the court below acquitted among the facts charged in the indictment in this case, was attempted to prevent the fire, is also stated in the applicable law as to the realization of the conjunctive charge that the court below acquitted, "Article 170 (2), (1), and Article 167 (2) of the Criminal Act," and the application for the amendment to the indictment made on May 16, 2018 only stated as "Article 170 (2) and Article 167 of the Criminal Act".

The facts charged are as follows: (a) an application for changes in indictment was filed to the effect that “the facts charged in the case of 2017 Gohap 137” are changed in exchange with the same contents as stated in the “criminal facts; and (b) this Court permitted this, and thus, the entire acquittal portion of the judgment below was no longer maintained (the revised conjunctive facts charged are acknowledged as follows). Meanwhile, the conviction portion of the judgment of the court below is a concurrent crime with the reversed part and the part of the judgment of the court below, and thus, one sentence should be imposed. As such, the conviction portion of the judgment of the court below is true