2. There are circumstances that can be considered for the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case as a basic living beneficiary, committed a mistake, led to the crime of this case by contingency, and there is no loss of human life, and the defendant has economic difficulty as a basic living beneficiary.

However, the crime of this case was committed by using gas bags, which was administered by the defendant, and was fired by using a portable gas bags. In light of the motive for crime, method of crime, degree of damage, etc., the poor quality of the crime is likely to cause serious harm to human life, body, property, etc., and in particular, the defendant's fire-prevention officers could lead to enormous harm to human life, as they are used by many unspecified people. The defendant committed the crime of this case without being familiar with the window of other guests in around 1991, and committed the crime of this case without being familiar with the victim during the repeated crime period, and even though the victim appears to have suffered considerable damage, the defendant did not make special efforts for the recovery of damage, and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive and means of crime, etc., and all of the sentencing guidelines and the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court after the crime are considered to be unfair.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

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