The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In order to commit suicide at the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not prepare fire prevention against the police station as to gasoline, which emblshes the gasoline and enters the gasoline in the body of the Defendant, for a cleaning agent.

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

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, such as D’s statement as witness of the determination of facts, CCTV-cap photographs, etc., the Defendant entered the gasoline only into the police station with his body as stated in the lower court’s decision at the time of the instant case.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit, since it is sufficiently recognized that police officers failed to attach a fire on the wind that they restrain.

3. The fact that a criminal defendant did not suffer substantial damage due to his/her criminal act, etc. is a favorable circumstance.

On the other hand, the crime of this case was committed in a police station where many police officers and civil petitioners had prepared fire prevention by putting gasoline on their body and attaching fire as a rater. In light of the law and risk of the crime, there are many criminal offenses including the defendant who was sentenced to imprisonment for the same kind of crime, and even if he was a repeated crime, he again commits the crime of this case even though he was committed for the period of repeated crime, and the fact that the defendant was committed again again, and that it was urgent to avoid the consistent and liability of the defense that was difficult to understand rather than to recognize and reflect his mistake.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, sex, environment, family relationship, and motive for committing the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the instant records and arguments, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable, and thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

4. The appeal by the defendant is justified.