A. At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of lacking the ability to properly discern, or make decisions on, the subject matter under the influence of alcohol.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, the fact that the defendant was in a drunken state at the time of the crime of this case may be acknowledged, but in light of various circumstances such as the situation acknowledged by the above evidence at the time of the crime and the defendant's act before and after the crime of this case, it cannot be seen that the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above circumstances before and after the crime of this case.

B. Even when considering the favorable circumstances of the Defendant’s confession and reply to the instant crime, and the fact that there is no same kind of force related to the crime of fire prevention, the instant crime of fire prevention may be serious damage to the public safety and another’s life, etc., only by itself, and even if the Defendant knows that female employees working together at the time were locked by another room, even though he was aware of the fact that he had committed the said crime of fire prevention, the Defendant would have a higher possibility of criticism in that he had committed the crime of fire prevention and attempted to abscond by stealing his own dignity, and even after he committed the said crime of fire prevention, he did not have to recover any damage up to the present, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, circumstances of the crime, circumstances after the crime, and other various sentencing conditions revealed in the instant argument, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines set forth in the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Commission, it cannot be deemed unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.