The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court of first instance held that the Defendant did not start the commission of the crime of fire prevention even though he did not start the commission of the crime of fire prevention in the event that the Defendant spreads the passage through the floor of the community hall of this case and puts the passage through the wall. The court of first instance held that the Defendant did not start the commission of the crime of fire prevention.

B. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in eight months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. In a case of a crime of fire-fighting in the form of setting fire to the effect that a structure should be destroyed by an object of publicity against the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, if the offender attached a fire to the medium, or caused a fire to the medium by the act of the offender, and thus the burning action may continue, it shall be deemed that there was the commencement of the crime of fire-fighting, even if the structure itself, which is the object of the crime, was not relocated due to the circumstances such as the immediate extinguishment, etc., and whether there was commencement of the crime of fire-fighting in a specific case shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the intent or awareness of the defendant at the time of the crime, the method and form of the crime, the scene and surrounding circumstances, the type and nature of the medium

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6641 delivered on March 26, 2002). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court, the Defendant prepared transit when the Defendant was dissatisfied with the direction of the entrance of the community center in this case, and distributed the transit through the floor of the conference room of the community center in this case, which became the electrical department of the community center in this case, and the Defendant prevented the Defendant from passing through the community center in this case, but rather, the Defendant was waiting to go against.