The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

The summary of the grounds for appeal: The punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The defendant had attempted to receive insurance money after leaving a building where people live at late night with the intention to receive insurance money.

This crime of fire prevention can cause serious damage to a large number of life or property, such as unpredictable places, which is likely to cause a high possibility of criticism in itself.

The Defendant committed the instant crime in a planned and intelligent manner, such as preparing newspapers, etc., to ensure that the Defendant had not concluded a fire insurance contract and committed a intentional fire prevention crime within one week, and that he had committed the instant crime.

Furthermore, the defendant has a number of criminal records including punishment sentenced to criminal fraud due to the failure to notify double insurance in fire insurance.

These points are disadvantageous to the defendant.

However, the Defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and opposed to all of them.

In addition, there was no loss of human life due to the failure to spread to other parts of the building outside the 1st underground floor operated by the defendant due to fire prevention. Insurance fraud crimes are attempted and there was no profit that the defendant acquired due to the crime of this case.

In the first instance, the victim D, who is the owner of the building, agreed with the victim D, and the victim was the victim's wife against the defendant.

The defendant's age is 67 years old and is suffering from heart diseases, and health is not good.

These points are favorable to the defendant.

In addition, considering the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, means and results, family relationship, and applicable form of punishment as a whole, various sentencing conditions shown in the records and arguments of this case, the sentence against the defendant of the court below is somewhat inappropriate.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing on this point is justified.

The conclusion is.