2. The fire-fighting crime of this case was committed against a cargo driver who does not participate in the strike to maximize the strike effect of the CBA. The act of fire-fighting in this case was committed in a planned and sealed manner, such as systematically sharing the role and searching for the cargo in advance. In order to avoid water death, the act was committed in a place without CCTV by preparing a largephone and a large-scale vehicle, and then by burning the large-scale vehicle, it was committed in a planned and sealed manner. The damaged vehicle up to 20 vehicles up to 20 vehicles up to 1.16.7 billion won, which is a crime against a cargo driver who lives as a major means of living, and it was committed against a cargo driver who has been divingd within the damaged vehicle at the time of the crime of this case. The act of this case was committed against a cargo driver who was committed as a major means of living. The act of this case, as long as there was a person who was within the damaged vehicle, it was obvious about the day of the damage to human life, the difficulty of the cargo driver and the purpose of the C trade union.

In full view of the fact that illegal and violent acts such as the act of fire prevention in this case are not permissible, the defendant's mistake is very large.

However, in full view of the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is against himself; (b) the primary offender is the cargo driver who is in the position of the socially weak; and (c) there are some circumstances to consider the purpose or background of the fire-fighting act in this case; (d) the victims of the fire-fighting in this case have agreed with all the victims of the fire-fighting in this case; and (e) other factors of sentencing as indicated in the argument in this case, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, and family relation, it is deemed that the sentence imposed by the lower court is excessively heavy or excessively unreasonable.