현존건조물방화
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.
1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. The crime of this case is a case where the defendant added gasoline to a restaurant operated by the type and the type and destroyed the sum of KRW 160,000,000,000 for repair expenses, and the crime of this case was committed, and the crime of this case was committed, and there was a property damage which remains after the appearance of the restaurant, etc., and there could have been human life damage to the large number of persons who are employees at the time of the restaurant, and the crime of fire prevention may cause serious danger to a large number of life, body, and property, which is disadvantageous to the defendant.
On the other hand, on the other hand, the defendant recognized the crime of this case and against the mistake, and there was no past record of criminal punishment for the same crime, the victim seems to have taken out fire insurance, and the defendant was suffering from uneasiness disorder due to the loss of traffic accident by his wife and the large children who are divorced from the fire insurance, and the defendant was suffering from uneasiness disorder due to the loss of traffic accident. In the past, he was forced to be hospitalized into the mental hospital for about four months, and was subject to cooling, even though he had been forced to work for three months at the restaurant operated by the type, he was unable to receive wages.
In light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant and all other sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, sex, family environment, etc., the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable, in light of the following: (a) the defendant's emotional personality disorder does not reach the degree of mental and physical weakness; and (b) even if it appears that the defendant's emotional personality disorder did not reach the degree of mental and physical weakness; and (c) the defendant's emotional personality disorder appears to have influenced the crime of this case.
3. If so, the defendant-appellant.