The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 10 million.

The defendant does not pay the above fine.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the prosecutor 1) found that at the time of the instant act, the Defendant had “the purpose of harming the present building” and constituted a preliminary crime against the present building. However, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The above sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant and the prosecutor, prior to the judgment on the ex officio, the prosecutor maintained the facts charged for the crime of preliminary fire-prevention of the present state building against the Defendant as the primary facts charged, and stated in the applicable law that “special intimidation” was “Article 284 and Article 283(2) of the Criminal Act,” and the applicable law applied to “a judgment using the facts charged again,” which added the same contents as those stated in paragraph (2) of the criminal disturbance as the facts charged, and this court permitted this.

As examined below, this Court maintained the conclusion of the lower court that acquitted the Defendant on the primary facts. As such, the charges added in the preliminary facts become subject to a trial by this Court, and as seen below, the lower court’s judgment that only the previous primary facts charged was subject to a trial cannot be maintained as long as the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the ancillary facts as stated below.

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal of authority, the prosecutor's assertion of misunderstanding the facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and is judged below.

B. The lower court determined as to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, ① the Defendant from the investigative agency to this court.