The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable that the original court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On August 12, 2019, the Defendant’s counsel for ex officio determination of mistake of facts argued that the public danger cannot be deemed to have occurred by setting a fire by the Defendant through the summary of the pleadings.

This is not a legitimate ground for appeal due to the submission period of the appeal and the subsequent argument, but it is examined ex officio.

The term "public danger" in Article 167 (1) of the Criminal Act, which prescribes a general crime of fire-fighting, refers to a specific risk that infringes on life, body, or property of an unspecified or large number of people, and whether such risk is likely to result in such infringement in light of the empirical rule, should be objectively determined on the basis of specific circumstances.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12947 Decided January 14, 2010). Examining the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it can be sufficiently recognized that there was specific risk of infringing on life, body, or property of many and unspecified persons due to the Defendant’s fire prevention.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court below that made the same conclusion as just, and it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake of facts.

1) At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant’s fire prevention, once the fluorial length started in dry field owned by the victim, carried approximately KRW 1,707 square meters of nearby forests and fields ( approximately KRW 516 square meters) and carried out part of 3 and 4 parts of graves and trees. 2) At the time of the instant crime, there was a risk of fluoring the fluoral in the time of inserting the fluoral wave and strong wind

Indeed, the Defendant “at the time”, the Defendant had been unsatisfyed between him and his satisfy, and satisfy in the back.

Before the brush, I have gone to go away and attached to the police officer called out.

At the time, it is impossible to do so.