All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

The Defendant’s defense counsel based on the gist of the grounds for appeal alleged in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine that “the instant building constitutes the present owner’s building” at the first trial date of September 27, 2017 after the submission period for the reasons for appeal and the first trial date of the first trial. However, the aforementioned assertion is filed after the lapse of the period for submission of the reasons for appeal, and thus cannot be a legitimate reason for appeal.

B. A review ex officio reveals that the present main building under Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act refers to a place used by a person other than an offender as a place for daily life, and that a person other than an offender exists inside the existing building. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the building on which the main building of this case is located is a commercial building of the 7th floor of steel concrete slvest roof, where a restaurant, singing shop, or telecom, etc. is located. At the time of the occurrence of the fire of this case, 31 guests who reside in the apartment located on the 3 to 6th floor of the above building, and 7th floor of the victim Jind's family living on the 7th floor (Evidence record 274 pages), the building of this case constitutes both the present main building and the existing building. Thus, the defendant's assertion on the above defense is without merit.

In fact, the fire of this case was moved to another place as a result of the defendant's attachment of his head with a rater to commit suicide, so the defendant did not have intention to commit fire.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too uneasible and unfair.

The judgment of the court below on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts.