A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the crime.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal

A. Although the judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport, the court below held that the defendant did not seem to have a mental and physical disability at the time of the crime of this case, considering the following circumstances: (a) although according to the notice of the result of the mental appraisal by the Medical Treatment and Custody Director on July 25, 2018 of the Medical Treatment and Custody Director, the social age is 17 years of age and social index estimates as "average" as "106.25 years of age; and (b) the defendant's ability to distinguish property and decision-making ability was determined as having not reached the level of mental and physical disorder even if the defendant was intellectual disability; and (c) the defendant did not seem to have been in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of the crime of this case.

In addition to the circumstances revealed by the court below, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the result of the determination of intellectual disability submitted by the defendant to the court below, which was about about 10 years prior to or five years prior to the determination of intellectual disability, or the notice of the result of mental appraisal at the court below was determined comprehensively on the basis of all previous medical records against the defendant. Thus, the mental appraisal report at the court below on July 25, 2018 appears to be more appropriate materials to determine the defendant's ability to discern the object or make decisions at the time of committing the crime. In the case of the age of 17 years old, the court below seems to be able to fully recognize the danger and result of fire prevention in the case of the age of 17 years old, and in fact, the defendant was able to extinguish the fire by reporting