현주건조물방화미수등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and eight months.
The treatment, custody and custody applicant shall be treated, and stored.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the Defendant-Appellant for the medical care and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have any fire as stated in the facts constituting a crime [2016 Gohap 613] 2 of the lower judgment (the Defendant and his defense counsel added this part of the claim on June 13, 2017, which was subsequent to the lapse of the appeal period, on the first trial date, following the lapse of the appeal period.
B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (two years of imprisonment and confiscation) is too unreasonable because it is too unreasonable.
2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the following facts are examined: (a) The notice of the result of mental appraisal, diagnosis, and each description of the certificate of persons with disabilities: (b) the Defendant was in a mental and physical weak state where the Defendant, at the time of each of the instant crimes, had the ability to discern things or
Recognizing that the prosecutor's claim for the treatment and custody of the defendant for the second time in the trial, the prosecutor decided to combine the case with the defendant, and accepted the claim for the treatment and custody of the defendant as seen below, so the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
Despite the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined in the following 3.3.
3. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant's above assertion by the defendant is without merit, since he could sufficiently recognize the fact that he attempted to discover and extinguish it, even though he predicted that the suspension, etc., as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 2 of the Criminal facts (2016 Gohap 613) of the judgment of the court below, can be destroyed by a fire as a whole in the event that the suspension, etc., can be destroyed by a fire as a whole. However, the defendant's above assertion by the defendant is without merit.
4. The defendant's assertion of facts is with merit.