The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (two years and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the defendant are that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and repented of the mistake, and that there was no loss of human life due to the crime of this case.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant on the ground that 10 households live in the apartment house, and there was a risk of causing serious damage to life, etc., such as the transfer of Ba, which is the place where the crime was committed. The actual crime of this case led to the escape of the residents living in the neighbor, even though considerable property damage was incurred due to the crime of this case, the defendant is not able to recover the damage of the victims, and is not able to receive a letter from the victims, and the fact that the defendant has been punished for the same crime is disadvantageous to the defendant.

If there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court as an appellate court.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the circumstances alleged by the health team and the Defendant as an element of sentencing were already revealed and sufficiently considered in the hearing process of the lower court. There was no particular change in the situation regarding the matters subject to sentencing after the lower judgment was sentenced.

In addition, in full view of the Defendant’s age, occupation, character and conduct, environment, means and consequence of the crime, motive and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., various sentencing conditions and form as shown in the arguments, sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, etc., the sentencing of the lower court is too unfair because it was conducted within the reasonable scope of discretion.