The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (the crime of attempted fire-prevention in the present residential building) the Defendant, who was wraped with his male and female living together with the Defendant, has laid clothes in the house, and it is sufficient to see it as an act of intending to put the building in a way of mediating clothes. As such, the Defendant had an incomplete intention to prevent the present residential building at least.

I would like to say.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it was insufficient to recognize that there was an intentional intention to prevent a structure or fire. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misconception of facts.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment and one year of suspended execution) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a defendant denies an intention to deliberate on a crime, such as a criminal intent, which constitutes a subjective constituent element of a crime, the method of proving such intention is bound by the method of proving indirect facts that are relevant to the criminal intent.

(2) In light of the legal principles as to the existence of a criminal act, the court below’s determination on the existence of a criminal act as to the existence of a criminal act as a subjective element refers to the existence of the possibility of occurrence of a criminal act, and the existence of a criminal act as a subjective element refers to the existence of the possibility of occurrence of a criminal act, and as to the existence of a criminal act, the court below’s determination on the possibility of occurrence of a criminal act must be based on the perception of the possibility of occurrence of a criminal act, as well as on the internal intent to allow the risk of occurrence of a criminal act. The court below’s determination on whether a criminal act is permissible or not must be confirmed from the perspective of an actor, taking into account how to assess the possibility of occurrence of a criminal act if the general public is based on specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act, which were externally revealed,