A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The lower court determined that: (a) the fire-prevention crime of this case was committed by setting fire to and burns a building in which many people live; (b) it could cause serious damage to life, body, or property of the person in danger of explosion; (c) particularly, it was extremely dangerous and inferior to the law of the receipt of the crime; (d) the suspect interrogation protocol was damaged in the course of the investigation without any reflection against the prohibition of dangerous crimes; (e) the defendant has already been punished several times of violent crimes; and (e) the defendant has already committed several crimes during the suspension period of execution due to special assault; and (e) the defendant committed the crime of this case only four months after the completion of the suspension period; and (b) the defendant appears to have committed all of the crimes of this case; (b) the defendant was aware that the crime of this case was committed during the attempted crime; (d) the defendant was committed with limited damage; and (e) the defendant’s motive, method, and circumstances favorable to alcohol dependence; and (c) the defendant’s motive and motive to commit the crime of this case.

In full view of the factors and guidelines for sentencing expressed in the sentencing review process of the lower court, the lower court’s determination of sentencing is not deemed to have exceeded the reasonable bounds of its discretion.

(2).