The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the defendant, the defendant, and the defendant's imprisonment with labor for two years and three years of suspended execution) are too unreasonable.

2. A board: (a) there is no particular criminal history other than that of the Defendant subject to a fine twice prior to the instant case (the previous conviction is not the same as the instant crime); (b) appears to have led to a contingent crime under the influence of alcohol; (c) the occurrence of human life was not caused by the instant crime; (d) the degree of property damage was relatively minor; and (d) the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendant by mutual consent with the victim, etc. favorable to the Defendant.

① However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) multiple employees and customers still remain in the main place at the time of the Defendant’s fire-prevention act; (b) the Defendant left the scene of the crime without taking measures such as death or damage change; and (c) but was identified as the offender only through CCTV and telephone record verification, etc., the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not somewhat weak.

In addition, when comprehensively considering various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and result of the crime, the crime of this case is an attempted crime, and the sentencing criteria are not applied.

Since the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The defendant's appeal is without merit. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.