2. Circumstances are favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects, that there was no history of punishment for the Defendant for the same crime, that there was no significant loss of human life due to the instant crime, and that the Defendant committed the instant crime in a contingent manner by disregarding his living condition while under the influence of alcohol.

However, since the defendant resided in a small room of the second floor owned by C from around 2015 to the small room of the second floor, he had been aware of the existence of C and his family members in the above house at the time of the instant case, causing damage to the second floor of the instant house by attaching a fire to the electric board located on the small room of the second floor, and the defendant voluntarily escaped from the small room of the second floor, and did not make efforts to prevent the spread of damage by extinguishing fire or informing C of the fire to its family members, and there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared with the lower court's decision, and since the court did not submit new sentencing data, it cannot be deemed that the sentencing of the lower court exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion, and considering other conditions of sentencing as shown in the trial process of the instant case, the above defendant's assertion is unreasonable.

3. The defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.