All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1 did not cut the pipes of liquefied petroleum gas as stated in the facts charged. 2) The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (six months without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

B. The above-mentioned sentence of the prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The Defendant made the same assertion as the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, and the lower court rejected the determination in detail.

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the court below based on evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that he cut the piping of liquefied petroleum gas as stated in the facts charged, so the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

화재가 발생하였을 당시 D 옆 빈 점포에서 걸레받이 공사 작업을 하고 있던 L는, “사무실은 앞뒤로 나뉘어져 유리문으로 연결되어 있는데, 누군가 사무실 뒤쪽에서 그라인더로 작업을 하는 소리가 나면서 유리문이 ‘퍽’ 소리와 함께 깨지고, 동시에 깨진 유리문 사이로 불이 확 타올랐다. 그리고 그쪽에 있던 사람이 ‘불이야’하면서 뛰쳐 나갔다.”고 진술하였다

(Evidence Records 17 pages) In fact, as regards liquefied petroleum gas pipelines inside D stores on fire site, the country that cut off with the rasher remains.

(Evidence Records 15 pages). (b)

D Y, the lessee, who leased the next empty shop from the Defendant, stated that “Y, although the leased space was less than the commission of the operation of the Do and the lap board to the human body, there was only the necessary space for the front part of the store, and the back space was used by the Defendant, the owner of the D, as the main owner of the D.”

(Evidence Records 36-37 pages) In fact, L. Does in charge of the above Y are forward of D's vacant stores at the time of fire.