The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The sentence of imprisonment with prison labor ( four years for imprisonment and confiscation) of the first instance shall be too unlimited and unfair;

2. The crime of this case, which was committed on the part of the victim, is an action against the victim, who is in the place of work, and the defendant tried to kill a flammable substance with a flammable substance with a incombustible substance in the body of the victim. If the place of the crime was not removed from the place of the crime, then the crime cannot be easily imprisoned to the body of the victim. In light of the fact that the victim’s life could have been dangerous, the nature of the crime is not easy.

Nevertheless, the damage has not been recovered.

However, the first instance court: (a) took into account the fact that the instant crime was committed in the attempted crime; (b) the victim expressed his previous position to punish the Defendant while wanting to be legally punished at the court of first instance; and (c) the Defendant did not have domestic criminal power; and (d) sentenced 4 years of imprisonment after setting the applicable sentencing range (one to two years of imprisonment), taking into account various sentencing conditions, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, criminal records, occupation, and environment; and (b) determined the applicable sentencing range (one to 15 years of imprisonment). The first instance court’s reasons for sentencing and the process of deriving the sentencing guidelines as stated in the records of the instant case, and the basic area (a special mitigation: (a) of the sentencing scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines for the crime of murder according to the sentencing guidelines, which falls under the basic area (a) of the “second category of punishment” (a person who committed murder intentionally or who is under a special special mitigation: planned murder) and thus, the lower limit of the sentencing range is 1/3, and a maximum of three years to 2/3 months of imprisonment.

In light of the above, considering the fact that the defendant was committed in the first instance trial and the defendant was committed with the crime of this case, the sentence imposed by the first instance court is judged to have been determined at a minor level among the recommended sentencing range according to the sentencing guidelines, and it is not recognized that such sentencing of the first instance court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion