The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

However, for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. From the police stage to consistently commit suicide, the Defendant stated that there is no need to consider the prevention of a fire.

Therefore, the defendant did not intentionally commit a fire as stated in the facts charged.

The fire of this case was only caused by the wind that the defendant moved tobacco to a bitrife to a bitrife lease on a living room, as a usual habit.

B. The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts, the lower court: (a) based on the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, namely, that the Defendant told the Defendant to commit suicide in the process of communicating with Chok J and Cho Dong-dong D; (b) it is difficult to view the Defendant’s behavior at the time of the fire to be seen as the attitude of the person who caused the loss of the Defendant’s behavior; and (c) it is not easy for the Defendant to spread much within the short time as in the instant case due to the fire caused by a cigarette distribution; and (d) it appears that the Defendant had the intent to commit fire at the time of the instant crime.

The decision was determined.

In addition to the various circumstances stated by the court below, considering the following additional circumstances, it is recognized that the defendant committed the crime of this case with the intention of fire prevention.

According to this, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant.

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

① On February 29, 2016, a man who was expressed as the Defendant’s seat may die in his/her own phone because he/she did not do so.

“.....”

At the same time, the report was filed.

While the patrol vehicle was dispatched to the site after receiving the above report, the defendant was offlined by D in the 112 comprehensive situation room.

It does not refuse to do so.

A report stating the content “..............”