The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the above punishment for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the preparation of the existing structure and fire in the facts of the crime No. 2 of the lower judgment as indicated in the lower judgment, the Defendant’s act of putting gasoline in the E office containing gasoline and dusting gasoline into the body of the victim. However, the Defendant did not possess a string at the time and did not intend to actually put the victim into the above office, and it did not intend to put the Defendant into a string, but did not intend to actually put the existing structure and fire in the above office. Thus, the Defendant did not have any intention or purpose.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (eight months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and twenty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant for an ex officio judgment.

In the trial of the party, the prosecutor applied "Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.)" to "special intimidation" in the name of the defendant, and "Articles 3 (1), 2 (1) 1, and 283 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act" in the applicable provisions of the Criminal Act "Article 284 and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act "A person who applies for amendments to an indictment of each change," and the same court approved the amendment.

Therefore, the lower court’s determination on this part was impossible to be maintained, and the facts charged such as this part of the facts charged and obstruction of the remaining duties are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed. Accordingly, the lower judgment cannot be maintained in its entirety.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined below.

B. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles