The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged against the Defendant and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment although the Defendant did not have been at the scene of fire prevention.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too heavy.

Although the defendant's defense counsel asserts mental and physical weakness, since the court below has given legal mitigation on the grounds of the defendant's mental and physical weakness, such argument can be viewed as the argument that it is necessary to consider mental and physical weakness due to sentencing.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence adopted, found the facts stated in its reasoning based on the assertion of mistake of facts, and, in light of such facts, can sufficiently recognize the facts of the Defendant’s crime.

The decision was determined.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and it erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. The sentencing of a judgment on an unfair assertion of sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

such exceptional cases.