2. In light of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, the lower court determined a punishment against the Defendant, taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant led to the rapid extinguishment of a fire by making a confession and a mistake against the Defendant; (b) the Defendant reported to the relevant authorities after the commission of the crime; (c) the commission of the crime was committed; (d) the owner of the damaged building does not want criminal punishment against the Defendant; (c) the crime of fire prevention may cause serious harm to the lives or property of the citizens, even if the size of the crime is minor; (d) the Defendant was punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years due to the crime of death resulting from death resulting from the same structure at the same location; and (e) the Defendant committed the crime of this case, even during the repeated period, even after having been punished for a repeated offense.

As above, in light of the fact that the sentence imposed by the court below which is favorable to or unfavorable to the defendant falls under the lowest sentence of the sentencing mitigated amount, and there are no special changes in circumstances that can be assessed differently in the appellate court, the sentencing of the court below cannot be deemed unfair because the sentencing of the court below is too large.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.