The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant's negligence, which is a medium medium of instimulible power, has come to a state of burning by himself, and thus, it can be acknowledged that the building C, which is the primary charge of this case, is the object of the lawsuit.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor shall add "Article 170 (2) and Article 167 (1) of the Criminal Act" to the applicable provisions of the facts charged in the case of the trial, and shall apply for the amendment of an indictment which adds the facts charged to the preliminary charges as stated below, and this court permitted the application, thereby changing the subject matter of the judgment, and as seen thereafter, the above changed facts charged are found guilty. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further in this respect.

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the argument of mistake of facts about the primary facts charged by the prosecutor is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

나. 항소이유에 관한 판단 원심은, 검사가 이 사건 주위적 공소사실에 대하여 형법 제170조 제1항, 제166조 제1항을 적용하여 공소를 제기한 이상, 형법 제166조 제1항에 기재된 건조물인 C 여관 301호가 소훼되었는지 여부가 쟁점이라고 할 것인데, 위 301호에 있던 이불에 불이 붙었던 것은 분명하지만, 벽지에 불이 옮겨붙은 흔적이 존재하지 않는 점, 여관 주인인 D도 ‘바가지로 물을 떠 이불에 부었으나 불이 꺼지지 않아 요와 이불을 들어 화장실로 옮긴 다음 불을 껐다’는 취지로 진술하고 있을 뿐 벽지에도 불이 붙어 있었다는 진술을 하지는 않은 점, 위 이불이...