The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of mistake of facts (the fact of preventing general buildings and fire) and various circumstances recognized thereby, the court below acquitted the Defendant of this part of the charges on the charge, by misunderstanding the facts, although it could be recognized that the Defendant committed the crime of preventing fire in this case.

The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment, one year of suspended execution) imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unfair.

Judgment

The establishment of facts in a misunderstanding of facts must be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that the aforementioned convictions are to be followed, the determination should be made in the interests of the defendant even if the suspicion of guilt exists, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense is contradictory or uncomfortable.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). The lower court acquitted the Defendant of the charges of preventing general buildings and fire, while sufficiently explaining the grounds for determining this part of the allegation.

Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in light of the record, there is a doubt about the defendant's conduct before and after the occurrence of the fire and there is a part that is difficult to believe the defendant's defense as it is.

Even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor cannot be deemed to have been proven to the same effect, and there is no error of mistake of facts in the judgment below that acquitted the public prosecutor.

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

Although it is necessary to punish the defendant's act of inflicting an injury upon the victim's head in the custody of the victim's head, which is a dangerous object, it is necessary to do so.