The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court accepted the Defendant’s assertion that misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of the legal doctrine did not think that she would put us on the mind of Obaba, and that she could not spread to the building. However, 1) the Defendant appears to have colored the place for committing the crime in advance, 2) the Defendant was well aware at the lower court of the lower court as to the wooden table of H restaurant.

(3) The Defendant believed that he was on board only the Otoba, and that the Otoba, set up next to the wood table, put a fire into rest, confirmed that the Otoba, left the site, and believed that he was on board only the Otoba.

In full view of the fact that such Defendant’s attitude is difficult to see, and it is reasonable to understand that the Defendant’s attitude is superior to how it is, and ④ there is no reason for the Defendant to shotbane left alone. In full view of the fact that there was an intentional fire-fighting of the HH restaurant building in doluma.

Although the court below found the defendant not guilty, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. Sentencing’s unfair act is a very dangerous crime that causes damage to a building used by a person as a residence. In fact, even though it actually causes damage to the repair cost of KRW 30,000,000, the damage has not yet been recovered up to now, and it was arrested through an analysis of nearby CCTV after the lapse of several months after moving from the place of work after the crime, and consistent with the defendant’s punishment (one year and six months) declared by the court below, as it is too uneasible, even after the arrest.

2. Determination

A. 1) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court determined that the Defendant: (a) destroyed the Defendant’s vehicle by attaching it to the Oraba, which was set up adjacent to the H cafeteria building as stated in the lower judgment; and (b) attached to the said Oraba.