The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) On the attempted fire prevention of the present owner's structure, the fire that was affixed to the garbage bags located in the luxurg, whether the fire was gas bags or adjacent thereto, is not intentionally fire prevention.

2) With respect to interference with the performance of official duties, the Defendant did not assault the police officer in front of the E building with the notified personnel.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the record as to the assertion that the fire was not intentionally prevented, the record reveals the phenomenon that ① in depth shoting around the point of origin through a decoration in order to cause a fire by a cigarette smoke appeared. The fact that the carbonized waste of this case is not shotn in depth at one point of origin, and the surface was burned widely, ② that the investigation agency did not set waste on the ground of gas bags at the investigation agency.

The fact that the Defendant stated to the effect that the Defendant was unsatisfyed by having a cigarette left on vinyls at an investigative agency. However, the fire that occurred by the cigarette butts became a salt fire through the process of a decoration, so it can be acknowledged that there is a characteristic of the instant fire, unlike the Defendant’s statement, which proceeds slowly in the process, and in full view of the above facts, it is recognized that the instant fire was caused by the Defendant’s fire.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

나. 공무집행 중인 경찰관을 폭행하지 않았다는 주장에 대하여 기록에 의하면, G은 수사기관과 원심 법정에서 ‘ 고시원에서 행패를 부린다는 신고를 받고 출동하였는데, 피고인이 주먹으로 자신의 턱을 치고, 현행범으로 체포하려고 하자 손을 물고 발로 찼다.

“A consistent statement” was made and the witness H in the lower court’s court.