The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 2.5 million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the defendant's fire-prevention act causes public danger specifically, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant is erroneous.

Judgment

A. We examine ex officio judgment, and the prosecutor applied for changes in indictment with the contents of adding the charges of property damage, as seen below, as in the facts charged in the following facts: (a) the subject of the judgment was added by the court; and (b) the subject of the judgment was judged guilty, as seen later, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained.

However, despite such reasons for reversal, the prosecutor's argument of mistake of facts as to the primary facts charged is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. On February 7, 2014, the facts charged in this part of the facts charged are as follows: (a) around 21:40 on February 7, 2014, the Defendant: (b) destroyed the law by setting fire to the turf with a turf with a turf with a turf with a total floor area of 3 square meters, which is a public object managed by the turf, and thereby causing public danger; (c) the lower court determined that the crime of general fire-fighting under Article 167(1) of the Criminal Act is established when the crime of fire-fighting is committed by setting fire to the public and causing danger to the public; (d) the Defendant did not have any intention to commit the occurrence of danger to the public; or (e) did not punish the act of the Defendant [i.e., (i) the Defendant stated that the turf with a turf with a turf with a turf with a turf with a turf with a turff with a view.