The judgment below

The guilty part shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

The judgment below

part of acquittal.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the defendant (an imprisonment with prison labor for one year) sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, misunderstanding of the facts of inspection and misapprehension of the legal principles (as to attempted fire-prevention of existing buildings), the Defendant was in the storage form with a slive roof, and inflammable materials such as slves pumps are stored at a place less than 2 meters away from the place. Therefore, there was a possibility that the Defendant might move the fire to the slve roof or slves, etc.

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, although it could have intentionally acknowledged the possibility of independent burning in the building itself, and it was difficult for the Defendant to escape from fire under the recognition of the possibility of independent burning, and thus, it erred by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine.

The punishment sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

We examine ex officio the grounds for appeal by the defendant and prosecutor prior to the judgment.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment by obstruction of business, etc. at the Incheon District Court on June 25, 2020 and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 6, 2020. Each of the crimes against the defendant in the judgment below against the defendant is a concurrent crime with the obstruction of business, etc. which became final and conclusive, and a punishment shall be determined in consideration of equity with the case where a judgment is rendered simultaneously pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, in accordance with Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Therefore, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

However, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of the legal principles still exists, which is subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

This part of the judgment of the prosecutor's misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.