The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The decision of the court below on the summary of the grounds for appeal (2 million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

A. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant, among the 4th floor buildings owned by Busan Jin-gu B and the victim C, lived in the monthly length of 201 (10 square meters) and was living separately from the female-friendly Gu, who had been living separately, had the opening of the Gin-gu in Busan, Busan, and the victim C, had the Defendant thought that the clothes, etc. of the female-friendly ward were aboard

On April 26, 2017, at around 23:00, the Defendant destroyed a house owned by the victim by putting a fire on two balls prepared in advance as a single-use dog at the inside of the above residence, even though she was aware that the fire would have been caused to a different place. However, even though the fire was attached to the said dog, the Defendant destroyed the house owned by the victim by making the fire spread to the kitchen.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by compiling the evidence as indicated in its judgment.

(c)

1) The judgment of the competent court on the ground that a structure which is the object of the crime of fire prevention under the Criminal Act refers to a structure that is fixed on the land and composed of walls, columns, and roofs or tents, and in which a person may remove or enter the inside (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do3950, Dec. 12, 2013). The crime of fire prevention means a structure that is established on the land, and is capable of burning or burning inside the inside of the person (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do390, Dec. 12, 2013). When the crime of fire prevention takes place in a state where a person is capable of burning away from the medium medium (see Supreme Court Decision 70Do330, Mar. 24, 1970). Thus, in the case of a structure fire prevention, it is in a state where a person can continue burning independently with the object itself, and thus, it cannot be recognized that the structure has yet been in an independent burning.

2) According to the investigation report (on-site photographs) submitted by the prosecutor, a fire attached to a dog shall be removed from the floor.