The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

, however, from the date this judgment becomes final.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove the criminal intent of fire prevention as to the main building in the facts charged in the instant case. However, the court below found the Defendants guilty on the grounds that there is insufficient evidence to prove the crime intent of fire prevention among the facts charged in the instant case, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged as a result of the examination of evidence: (a) the Defendants prepared the width and the horse to implement the fire prevention of the main building in the floor; (b) the Defendants threatened the construction manager with the intention to fire; and (c) notified the police station and the fire station, etc. of the intention in preparation and the purpose of fire prevention of the main building in the instant case. In light of the aforementioned circumstances,

B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) against the Defendants is too unjustifiable and unfair.

2. Judgment on mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the facts charged as to the present state building and fire-prevention is that the Defendants seem to put the plos and the bombs together with the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a deadly weapons, etc.), which was found guilty by the lower court, and that they prepared the fire-prevention of a building in which people exist.

B. The lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendants had a criminal intent for fire prevention, in light of the following: (a) the Defendants were sent to the police station, a fire station, and a facility disaster prevention office; (b) the Defendants arrived at the scene of the crime; and (c) the Defendants did not go to turn on the ground that they were in a situation that they could cause fire without any particular hindrance; and (d) the witnesses H and G stated that the Defendants did not think of the Defendants’ fire in fact at the lower court court court’s court court.