The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 6,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Of the facts charged in the case of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that it is difficult to recognize the intention of fire prevention against the defendant, but it is deemed that there was an intentional act of fire prevention against the defendant in light of the present circumstances, and even if there was no intentional act, the court below should reverse the case where the amendment of indictment was made.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant was introduced by C with the introduction of C, but did not receive wages; (b) found C in a place where C is residing; (c) changed C’s wages in lieu of wages; and (d) instead, C did not pay money to C with C.

On April 2, 2013, at around 21:00, the Defendant did not find C at the third floor Fpublic announcement source of the building in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and C tried to burns the above public announcement source that a person uses as a residence by attaching a fire to the bed divers, which was in possession of the said public announcement source, and was in possession of the said public announcement source. However, H, who was residing in the 319 unit, tried to listen to the fire warning and to extinguish the fire.

B. The judgment of the court below and the court below found the following facts: (1) in the above public notice room 318, the fire warning H entered the above 318 room; (2) the Defendant was fluored, and the Defendant was fluored, and the part of the clothes retail of the Defendant was fluored next thereto; and (2) at the time of the above 318 room, the Defendant was fluording away from the rater, and H was fluoring away from the string of the above cigarette but was fluoring. (3) In light of the fact that the Defendant was fluoring the clothes retail part of her clothes, the Defendant continued to use it next to this.