The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of all the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the “examination opinion on the cause of fire” and “the result of the fire re-testing,” which was submitted by the court of fact-finding, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the crime of fire-fighting of the present state building among the facts charged in the instant case, and thus, there is an error of law of mistake

B. The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. 1) On May 9, 2013, the Defendant’s summary of this part of the facts charged is a single-story house owned by E (hereinafter “instant house”) around 15:10 on May 9, 2013.

2) On the other hand, the Defendant: (a) sought to drink F and alcohol, which live in that place; (b) however, F did not have been in the said house; and (c) was divided into G, H, and I’s talks in the room side of the room where F resides; (b) the Defendant entered the room where F is a resident; (c) but did not go into the room; and (d) attached a fire to the wall of the non-breadth and attached it to the bar, which is contained in the room on the wall of the non-breadth, and had the entire housing of 52.94 square meters in total floor area (hereinafter “the instant fire”).

(2) As such, the Defendant destroyed the instant house in excess of KRW 14,44,00,00, G, H, and I’s existing market price, and KRW 14,444,00 by setting fire. (2) However, the lower court’s determination based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, that is, it is difficult to find out any particular reason or motive for the Defendant to prevent the instant house. A person who was in the instant house at the time of the instant fire was G, H, and I, and all of them did not directly witness the Defendant’s attachment of the instant house as a guard, and the Defendant was merely from F’s room.