The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

A seized Rater (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles can independently continue burning on the housing itself, even though the crime of fire prevention against the present building has been completed, the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles which affected the conclusion of the judgment by recognizing only the crime of attempted fire prevention against the present building.

B. The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended execution, confiscation, probation, and 80 hours of community service order in one year and six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the crime of mistake of facts or fire-fighting against the main structure is a state where a building, which is the object regardless of the object which is an intermediate medium, can burn itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9164, Mar. 16, 2007). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the facts that the defendant accumulated the fire on the floor of the defense room and moved the victim to a divers and a divers, etc. by diversing the fire until the time when the victim led the fire, and the fact that part of the remote area which constitutes the housing of this case and the floor board of the defense room were put to fire due to the above divers and the above divers, but it is not sufficient to recognize it only by the above evidence, and there is no clear evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

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

B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing recognizes the instant crime and reflects it in depth, the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment for the last 30 years, the Defendant’s ability to judge during the commission of the instant crime led to the suppression of the instant crime, the property damage caused by the instant crime is minor, and the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment accordingly.