The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts and the legal principles), although the court below acquitted the defendant at the time of the instant case on the grounds that there was insufficient proof as to the defendant's fire prevention purpose, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Before the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the Prosecutor applied for amendments to the indictment with a view to maintaining the previous facts charged (the preparation of the present main structure and fire-prevention) as the primary facts charged and adding them as stated in the following facts charged. This Court permitted it, and thus the subject of the trial has changed by this Court. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any further.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio reversal, the argument of mistake or misunderstanding of the above facts as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in paragraph (3).

3. Judgment on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. On July 19, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Narcotics Control Act at the Busan District Court on the part of July 19, 2016 and completed the execution of the sentence at the Jinju Prison on January 23, 2017.

On October 2017, the Defendant received a diagnosis of a disability after an accident and received a payment of insurance money less than the amount requested by the Defendant in Company B to which he was a member of the company, and raised complaints to the B office located in Busan Jung-gu, Busan.

On September 10, 2019, the Defendant: (a) put about about 1 liters of plastics in a paper room; (b) found it in the office of the said stock company; and (c) went out to talk about D and insurance money, which is the director of the division of the long-term compensation in Busan; and (d) exceeded the Defendant’s own reputation.