2. In the judgment of the Defendant, the Defendant did not dispute the crime any longer before this court, and appears to have taken the attitude of breaking the wrong facts into account. The Defendant appears to have never suffered property damage or public danger that was caused by a fire as soon as possible, and there were no criminal records exceeding the same criminal record or fine, and there are circumstances that may be considered in light of the circumstances.

However, the crime of this case is highly dangerous because the crime of this case is likely to harm public safety and peace and causes enormous damage, in particular, since commercial buildings and buildings are concentrated, and the crime of this case is likely to cause large-scale damage due to a large amount of fire near Is, it is not good that the crime of this case was committed. The defendant directed the crime of this case directly to B by ordering fire prevention as a means to indicate the intent of paragraph by going against the policies of the Is Agency for the crackdown, and the defendant was not taking measures to recover damage, and it is not possible to take full account of various sentencing conditions in this case, such as the defendant's age, criminal records, character and behavior, environment, the recommended range of punishment according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission of the Supreme Court, and the final sentence against accomplices, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below is too unreasonable.

3. Accordingly, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal is groundless.