A. Under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state with weak capacity to discern things or make decisions.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record of judgment on the assertion of mental disability, the defendant may be deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case. However, in light of the motive, background, means and method of the crime in this case, and the circumstances before and after the crime in this case, it does not seem that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime in this case. Therefore,

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s mistake is divided in the course of committing the instant crime, and the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime somewhat contingently in the course of trying to commit suicide by disregarding his own belief, and the Defendant’s punishment, as well as the owner of the instant building, and the Defendant’s father C and the Defendant’s wife wishing to commit the Defendant’s wife, are favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case was committed by the defendant by setting fire to the extent equivalent to KRW 10,00,000 for repair cost by his father C, which is significant in light of the degree of damage and danger, which is highly likely to cause serious damage to human life, body, property, etc., and in particular, if the defendant's fire-proof building is located in the market entrance, it could lead to enormous damage to property. The defendant has been sentenced six times as well as multiple criminal records, and the defendant committed the crime of this case at least three months after being released without being aware of it during the period of repeated crime.