The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant was trying to extinguish a factory building owned by the victim D, but did not have the intent to fire a restaurant building owned by the victim G, and was not foreseeable to cause the victim F to inflict an injury on the cafeteria because it was fired in this cafeteria building.

B. There is no new objective reason to affect the formation of documentary evidence in the appellate trial’s trial process, and in the absence of reasonable grounds to deem that the determination of documentary evidence of the first instance was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts is considerably unfair due to the contrary to logical and empirical rules, the judgment on the acknowledgement of facts in the first instance shall not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). There is no new objective reason that may affect the formation of documentary evidence in the trial process of this court.

In addition, the court below rejected the above assertion in detail, on the grounds that this part of the appeal was the same as the grounds for appeal. The court below rejected the above assertion in the "Determination on the Defendant and his defense counsel's assertion" of the judgment.

There is no reasonable circumstance to deem that it is remarkably unfair to maintain the judgment as it is in violation of logical and empirical rules that the judgment of the court below was clearly erroneous or that the argument leading to the acknowledgement of facts was against the logical and empirical rules.

The lower court that convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged is justifiable.

The lower judgment did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as alleged in the Defendant, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

2. Determination of unfair argument about sentencing

A. The sentence of the lower court’s assertion is too unreasonable.

B. Where there is no change in the sentencing conditions compared to the judgment of the court below, and the sentencing of the court below is not beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.