A. On November 10, 2013, the Defendant was in a mental and physical state under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing a crime to extinguish the present building (hereinafter “crime to prevent the present building”).

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

[Defendant stated on the date of the first trial of the court of first instance that “it was not memory that intrusion into the church underground room around November 10, 2013,” but it was said that it was done by an investigative agency into intrusion into a structure, and that it would be desirable for defense counsel to make confession in the court of first instance.

The court below stated to the effect that there was no mistake that there was no crime of intrusion on the structure of this case and the crime of fire prevention against the structure of this case. However, this is not a legitimate ground for appeal since it was raised after the lapse of the period for filing an appeal, and it was not a legitimate ground for appeal. Even if ex officio, the court below erred by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.

[No.]

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the Defendant was investigated by the prosecution, and the Defendant was subject to investigation by the prosecution, and “Iyman who drinks alcoholic beverages on November 2013.”

It is the same that “I have consumed not only every day but also two to three times a week,” and we have received once until you pass.

“In response to the answer to “” (in the investigation record 197 pages) and the same day investigation, the statement was made several times to the effect that “I have no memory in a church underground warehouse on November 2013,” and that “I had been hospitalized in Qa Hospital on October 25, 2014 to receive treatment for alcohol addiction, but discharged on or around June 25, 2015” (the investigation record 38, 195 pages) can be acknowledged.

However, the defendant not only recognized all the facts charged in this case in the court of the court below, but also found that the investigation agency was not in the underground space of the church around November 2013.