The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Seized evidence 1 to 6 shall be confiscated, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.) and the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.) did not mean that the victim F would have been pushed away with gasoline, and that “I will die. Any person will throw away at the close angle.”

Nevertheless, the finding of the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged that he duplicated and threatened the victim is erroneous, or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The Defendant did not have intention to prevent fire. Nevertheless, among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of the charge of setting fire to the main building and setting fire, was erroneous in matters of law by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. (C) The Defendant did not publish any article for the purpose of slandering the Defendant, but all the articles posted by the Defendant are true, and even if false, there was no perception that it was false.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted of the violation of the Act on Promotion, etc. of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection (Defamation) among the facts charged in the instant case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair. (b) If the facts stated in the facts charged No. 2, 1 of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and if the facts alleged in the facts charged are not false or false, the lower court did not recognize the conviction of defamation in the factual context, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(b).