The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Even though it is obvious that the defendant had a fire on the wall of the house after having affixed it to the wall of the house, and it was in a situation where the defendant could independently burn out because of that fact, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact, thereby finding the fire to have reached an attempted crime.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of a suspended sentence in one year and six months, etc.) is too unhutiled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below held that it is difficult to regard the defendant's act of fire prevention to have reached the origin of the existing building and fire prevention only by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and found the defendant not guilty on the grounds of the existing building and fire prevention, and found the defendant guilty only for the crime of attempted fire prevention of existing buildings included in the same facts charged. 2) In light of various circumstances cited by the court below and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the court below did not attach the house itself at the time of the instant case, but merely put it to a fertilizer yard outside the house, or a part of the wall's outer wall outside the house of the wall cannot be seen as having reached the situation where the building can be independently burned. Thus, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's act of fire prevention was committed with attempted crime of fire prevention of existing buildings and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument of mistake is without merit.

(1) The crime of fire prevention shall be effective when the crime of fire prevention has been committed in a state where one is capable of burning water by himself/herself regardless of the medium (see Supreme Court Decision 70Do330, Mar. 24, 1970). In the case of a structure and fire prevention, the fire may continue to effect burning independently with the object itself attached thereto.