A. The Defendant, misunderstanding the fact, spreaded gasoline to the victim about to be frightened, citing the rab as his hand, and intending to threaten the victim, was put to the front part of the bus as well as the net explosion, and the Defendant did not have any intention to murder.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the charge of fire prevention against the existing motor vehicle in this case, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendant (25 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail by stating in the judgment.

Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the evidence duly adopted and examined, the court below's finding of facts and finding of evidence are justified, and there is an error of law by mistake in the facts as alleged by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the Defendant is recognized as having no health condition due to brain color, etc., and the Defendant suffered severe images due to the instant crime.

However, the crime of this case was planned to kill the victim on the ground that the defendant did not respond to the conversation, and subsequently, the crime of this case was committed by the driver of the bus with gasoline dusting in the bus and then resulting in the death of the victim by setting the bus, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not very good.

The defendant either received a letter from the bereaved family members of the victim or did not take any measures to recover damage.

The defendant.