Part 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the judgment shall be reversed.

The defendants are crimes of Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the judgment of the defendant.

A. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the 4 years of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the judgment of the court below for the crimes No. 1) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. On April 13, 201, the Defendant: (a) was sentenced to a suspended sentence of three years on imprisonment with prison labor on April 13, 201 for fraud, etc.; (b) again committed at night, attempted larceny; and (c) committed the crime of destroying the structure at present; and (d) the Defendant’s failure to recover the damage suffered by the Victim C until the trial was rendered, is an unfavorable circumstance to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized the facts of crime and divided his mistake, and the fact that there was no injury to human life due to the crime of fire prevention is favorable to the defendant.

Considering the above circumstances and the defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the equality between the cases where several conditions of sentencing and the judgment are to be rendered concurrently with the crime for which judgment became final and conclusive, the lower court’s punishment on the first crime is not deemed to be too excessive or unreasonable.

Therefore, the above argument by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. According to Article 166(1) of the Criminal Act, which applies to general automobile fire prevention and general structure fire prevention among crimes Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the holding, ex officio, the judgment on the part concerning crimes Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the holding, the statutory penalty is limited to not less than two years. Thus, the sentencing sentence shall be determined within the scope of the punishment aggravated for repeated crimes pursuant to the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act. However, the court below erred by omitting the application of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act in imposing aggravated punishment for general automobile fire and general structure fire prevention.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the judgment of the court below is the law.