2. It is recognized that the judgment of the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case, the defendant has no record of criminal punishment before, and the defendant was a resident of the house which was destroyed by the heavy fire, and the third person has no loss of human life and property.

However, in full view of the various circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, environment, family relationship, circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc., the sentence of the lower court cannot be deemed unfair, in light of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s house was fireed twice the past two times; (b) there was another heavy fault; (c) the degree of negligence of the Defendant appears to be almost the same as the Defendant’s intentional intent; (d) the secondary damage to the neighboring buildings may have been caused to the second damage; and (e) the Defendant did not agree with the victims of the remainder of the crime except the de factoization until the trial; and (e) the Defendant’s age, environment, family relationship, and circumstances leading to the instant crime, etc. before and after the instant crime.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.