The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the imprisonment of eight months and confiscation) is too heavy.

2. The Defendant recognized the instant crime and is in profoundly against the Defendant.

The defendant committed the crime of this case on the ground that the damaged vehicle was parked in front of his residence for a long time and caused inconvenience to the passage of the defendant.

The amount of property damage caused by the instant crime is at least 1.2 million won, and the amount of property damage caused by the instant crime was extremely large or did not lead to human life damage.

Defendant has no record of being sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment, in addition to the suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny for about 20 years.

On January 200, the Defendant was under medical treatment for ten years after undergoing a surgery by taking the head of a traffic accident. On December 2006, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the mental and physical weakness while receiving a judgment of Grade III mental disorders around December 2006.

Such circumstances are considered favorable to the defendant.

However, the ordinary car fire prevention crime is a very dangerous act that could cause human life damage or enormous property damage by spreading in the vicinity of the brush.

In fact, the defendant was likely to cause large-scale accidents due to explosion of vehicles or gas by putting a fire under the bottom of portable gas bags.

Defendant has not made efforts to recover damage.

Such circumstances are considered disadvantageous to the defendant.

Considering the various conditions of sentencing prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, and circumstances after the commission of the instant crime, it is not recognized that the sentence determined by the lower court is too unreasonable within the scope of mitigation of statutory punishment twice.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

3. The appeal by the defendant is justified.