The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

misunderstanding the legal principles on the gist of the reasons for appeal, the Defendant cannot be said to have committed a fire-prevention crime against the existing structure, as it did not reach the level of fire by putting a building into a hot oil which flows over and flows out with oil strings, or by putting it into a state which did not reach the degree of fire.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on its grounds as stated in its holding. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor of the judgment ex officio held that “the existing structure fire prevention” was to be applied to the facts charged in this case as “an attempted crime against existing structure” under Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act, and that “Article 174 and Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act is to be applied to “Article 174 and Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act,” among the facts charged, the part of the facts charged that “the above source was destroyed by breaking the oil string to the floor so that it was destroyed by the oil string up to the 2nd part of the floor with cement concrete material, which was destroyed by the oil string up to the bottom, but it was no longer possible for each court to grant permission to change the contents of the report to the effect that each person did not have attempted to change the amendment.”

In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the legal principles of the defendant and the unfair argument about sentencing, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

Criminal facts

Criminal facts recognized by the court as well as the summary of the evidence.