The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

except that, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable, and in particular, it is unlawful that the circumstance in which the Defendant voluntarily surrendered after the first investigation by the police was conducted is not considered in the sentencing of the lower court.

B. The prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment on the assertion of self-denunciation is that the defendant voluntarily reported the crime to the government agency responsible for the investigation and voluntarily sought the disposition. As such, it is only a confession to state the crime in response to the investigation agency’s official questioning or investigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do1893, Jun. 25, 2002). However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the police secured relevant evidence, such as CCTV images installed at the scene of a fire, and the fact that the defendant denied the crime of fire at the time of the first interrogation conducted on March 4, 2020, and recognized all of the statements after the reversal of the previous statement during the second interrogation conducted on March 9, 2020 (the defendant asserted that the defendant was all the time of the crime by telephone to the investigation agency after the first interrogation, but there is no evidence to support this). It cannot be viewed that the defendant voluntarily surrenders to his own crime.

In addition, the defendant voluntarily surrendered.

Even if the court voluntarily surrenders the self-denunciation, it is merely a mere fact that the court can voluntarily reduce the punishment, and the court below did not reduce the self-denunciation.

or failure to render a judgment on the allegation to reduce self-denunciation;

Therefore, it cannot be deemed unlawful.

(Supreme Court Decision 201Do12041 Decided December 22, 2011). B.

The crime of this case on the assertion of unfair sentencing is not a separate collection book of officetels used by many residents as their residence without any special reason, and the risk of the act itself is very heavy and the crime is not poor.