The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal: The sentence of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant committed the instant crime by contingency and was currently against the present one; and (b) the Defendant’s property damage caused by the Defendant’s commission of the crime was not significant.

2. The fact that the Defendant recognized his mistake while committing the instant crime, and that the instant crime was committed in an attempted attempt and the damage was not significant, etc., may be considered as favorable circumstances, such as the Defendant’s assertion.

However, the crime of this case is likely to cause damage to life and property which would have been difficult to recover if the fire had not been extinguishmented at the beginning.

Because of these risks, the criminal law is liable for the fire prevention of the main building as a hot statutory penalty.

In addition, the defendant did not take particular measures to recover damage until now, and the victims still want to punish the defendant.

Above all, since the defendant had the record of being sentenced to suspended sentence due to the crime of general goods and fire prevention of the same criminal, he did not know himself during the suspended sentence and again committed the crime in this case, it is inevitable to punish the defendant significantly.

In addition, considering the fact that there is no difference in the circumstance that can be reflected in the sentencing of the accused, and the scope of the sentencing, the cases of the same kind of sentencing, the character and conduct of the accused, the motive and circumstance of the offense, the means and consequence of the offense, etc., the sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.