The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the fact-finding structure and fire prevention, the defendant was merely trying to drink if the defendant was to do so, and the defendant did not intentionally pay the fire.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the crime of fire prevention against the present main building even though the defendant did not have intention to commit the fire is erroneous.

B. In light of the fact that the punishment of the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) against the Defendant is too unreasonable, in light of the fact that the criminal defendant committed a crime under the mental and physical weakness, etc. that the punishment of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of fact, namely, ① the Defendant entered the convenience store on the day of the instant case into the telecom with the Defendant’s fire prevention method and reason, etc.

The defendant stated to the effect that the extent of two (2) C in Sariju had no reason to prevent a fire without any reason, “half (1) half (2) in Sariju,” “The degree of half (2) in his body, and there is no reason to do so,” and “the Defendant purchased three (3) in the nearby convenience store before entering the accommodation on the day of the case,” and (2) in the prosecutor’s investigation, the defendant purchased three (3) in Sariju and sari at the nearby convenience store.

The degree of half of the 1st century was bread, and the place of the wife was unfolded and depthed.

‘ 빨리 빨리 끝내라’ 는 등의 환청이 들려서 소지하고 있던 일회용 라이터를 이용하여 침대 위 이불에 불을 붙였다” , “ 이불에 불을 붙이니까 갑자기 시커먼 연기와 불길이 확 일어났으며, 방 안에 보관하고 있던 녹 제거제가 불이 붙어 ‘ 쾅’ 소리가 나면서 터졌다” 고 진술한 점, ③ 제주 소방서가 작성한 화재발생 종합보고서에 의하면 최초 발화 지점은 침대로 추정되는 점, ④ 피고인은 수사기관 이래 원심 법정에서도 현주 건조물 방화...