Each judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Fact-misunderstanding (the point of the judgment of the court below No. 1) was not revealed as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts (the point of the ordinary car fire prevention in the judgment of the court below) without any evidence as to the act of putting a fire into the instant vehicle, and there is no evidence as to how to put a fire in the instant vehicle by any means, and the credibility of the V statement as to the fact that the Defendant collected an inflammable object through a window behind the

2) The sentence sentenced by the first instance court to the defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (a year of imprisonment with prison labor and a year of suspended execution) sentenced to the Defendant by the second instance judgment (unfair sentencing as to the judgment of the second instance) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. In the judgment of the court below at its discretion, the case of the judgment of the court below No. 1 and the case of the judgment of the court below No. 2 against the defendant was combined. Each of the above concurrent cases against the defendant should be sentenced to one punishment pursuant to Article 38(1)2 of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

In addition, the prosecutor changed "violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (damage to a group, deadly weapon, etc.)" from the name of the crime to "damage to a special property" as to the facts charged in this case after the commencement of a new trial, and applied law by changing "Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act" to "Article 369 (1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act" in the applicable law, and applied law by changing "Article 369 (1) and Article 366 of the Criminal Act" to "Article 366 of the Criminal Act." This court permitted this.

Therefore, each judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of the above facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The lower court determined as follows: (a) according to the description of the statement prepared by V, on-site photographs, and the results of field identification, the Defendant’s act on the object.