The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Seized Rabs (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the court below found the defendant guilty of the charges of fire prevention of general goods, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles of the crime of fire prevention of general goods, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, since it was not intended to set waste into a portable toilet itself, even though it was not intended to set the above portable toilet itself.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (one year of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence, legal principles, and circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant can be found to have caused public danger by destroying portable toilets, which are objects of another person, intentionally within the legal meaning. Thus, the court below cannot be deemed to have erred in its fact-finding and judgment.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

The judgment of the court below that there is proof of injury is also justifiable).B.

The instant crime, which is acknowledged by the evidence of the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing, the evidence law and the legal principles, interferes with the business of the Defendant’s main business owner D or customers in the place of such D or his/her main business by using the disease, etc., without any special reason, and furthermore, without any special reason, leads to the victim’sJ to have the victim’s simple toilets owned by the victim’s H, which are used as a store and a scambling house by setting fire and setting the outer wall of the victim’s I-owned building used as the store and a scambling house. In addition, the nature of the crime is not good, and in particular, the above fire prevention was a considerable risk of causing more severe damage, and the Defendant has been punished as a crime of violence or interference with business prior to the instant case, and there is an unfavorable sentencing factor or objective and neutral sentencing factor.