The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal as to the primary facts charged, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the primary facts charged on the ground that the crime of fire prevention was committed on the ground that the crime of fire prevention was committed on the ground that the crime of fire prevention was committed on the ground that the crime was committed on the ground that the crime of fire prevention was committed on the ground that the crime of fire prevention was committed on the ground that the material part of the object was destroyed and lost its original utility. The Defendant left a paper box (or alcohol light) which is the medium of the fire prevention, and it cannot be viewed that the Defendant was in a state where he could continue burning on the fence for the outer access control of the National Assembly's company, and on the ground that the fence for the outer entrance control of the object of the National Assembly and the upper 8 meters away from the wall, which is the medium of the fire prevention, and that there was no separate penal provision for the crime

The judgment below

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of fire prevention.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the conjunctive charges

A. In light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the grounds of the following: (a) was aware that at the time of the instant case, at the time, the Defendant produced and installed a one-time scapbane to attract social interest and vision; and (b) was aware that there was a perception and intent to cause damage to an object (fluent boxes) due to the act of heating a mixture of shotium contained in the front line of the shot light and shotium installed on the front line with alcohol lamps; and (c) was aware that the act of heating a mixture of shotium

In addition, it is difficult to readily conclude that there was an intention to deliberate on the risks of such consequences, and thus, it is also difficult to readily conclude that the conjunctive charges were not guilty.

B. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below.

According to records and evidence duly adopted, the following circumstances are revealed.

(1) The defendant has been established.