The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The Defendant’s statement that it was difficult for the complainant to put part of the lumberd timber from TV bed up to 10 cc on the day of the instant case to the bed in the bed farm of the complainant (hereinafter “the farm of this case”). However, there is no evidence that the complainant stated in the court below that the Defendant was on board the bedalty at the time of the instant case. On the fire site investigation, the possibility of combustion due to other mechanical, chemical, and electrical factors is rare, and the shot point appears to be the bedle of the bedle of the bedle, and the TV bed can not be maintained for 6 hours only with a view to the quantity of timber shotd from TV bed, and it is difficult for the complainant to maintain shotle for 6 hours on the television bed up, and the Defendant stated in the court below that he retired from TV bed and spared from the bed from the bed and sphered in the bed, and that there was no possibility for the complainant to use it in addition to the charges of this case.

Nevertheless, the court below acquitted the charged facts of this case on different premise, and the judgment of the court below erred by mistake of facts.

Judgment

A. The lower court, under the title of “2. Judgment”, states the grounds for the judgment of the lower court in detail. ① It is difficult to understand that: (a) it is difficult to understand that the Defendant continued to have the timber that began on board 10:0 o’clocks up to 4:0 o’clocks; or (b) the instant fire occurred while maintaining that the timber that began on board 10:0 o’clocks up to 4:0 o’s p.m.; and (c) even in the fire site investigation report on the fire-fighting site in the solar fire station,

“......”, and ② the Defendant.