The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the following: credibility in the F’s statement in the summary of the grounds for appeal; and F does not have any motive to prevent a fire; while the Defendant has motive to prevent a fire, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, but acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged by mistake of fact.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant is a person running E in Gwangju City (hereinafter “instant E”), with the intent to have F, a lessee of fishery products share the instant Et, and obtain insurance proceeds by fraud. On March 1, 2015, the Defendant issued insurance policies to F in the forepart of the instant Et in order to make it possible for him to do so, so that he can be able to continuously operate fishery products shareers within the fry, and if so, he would give him an insurance money separately. Accordingly, F, on April 11, 2015, without entering into the instant Et in order to make it possible for him to use the instant Et to pay 200 million won insurance money to the investigative agency for an attempted 200 million won by spreading the instant Et with gas and fire on the upper floor and the columns, thereby displaying the victim’s 4th of the instant Et, which is one of the instant buildings and its neighboring buildings, and displaying the victim’s 200 million won of the instant Mt.

B. The lower court’s determination is without consistency as to (1) whether F’s statement in an investigative agency and court had the intent to continue funeral in the instant marina, or whether the Defendant mentioned the business situation of the instant marina or the fact of insurance coverage at the time of the commission of the crime, and is inconsistent with objective circumstances, such as the details of telephone conversations with the Defendant after committing the crime.