A. The Defendant did not have an intentional intent to prevent a fire by setting fire to the main structure.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred in determining that the Defendant, by misunderstanding the fact of fire, destroyed the building 401, Songpa-gu Seoul apartment building (hereinafter “instant building”) with the intention to prevent fire, by setting fire to the same building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant committed a crime under the influence of alcohol or mental illness with the ability to discern things or make decisions, or with weak mental or physical loss or mental weakness, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby failing to recognize the Defendant’s mental or physical loss or mental weakness.

(c)

The punishment (one year, six months and confiscation) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances recognized by the lower court’s duly adopted and investigated evidence, the Defendant knew that the instant building might be destroyed by a fire due to its own act, and intended to do so.

Since the intention of fire prevention can be recognized.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

The Defendant saw that he was fluord by her body at the time of committing a crime, and was fluording him with a fluor’s body.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the defendant seems to have actively intended to attach a fire to the building for the purpose of getting D living in the building out of the building.

The Defendant was hospitalized in a mental hospital such as D and became a subject of self-refluence. The Defendant had only delivered D who first discharged the mental hospital before the crime was committed and attempted to return D as the above building, but D was also the address of D without telephone.