A. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability due to not only drunk at the time of the instant crime, but also the shock ability due to alcohol addiction, and the disability of actual judgment-making capacity.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the judgment of the court below and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the claim of mental disability, the defendant may be found to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, but in light of various circumstances such as the situation acknowledged by the evidence of this case at the time of the crime of this case and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime of this case, it is deemed that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, under the impulse control ability due to alcohol addiction, and under the lack of ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the defendant's appeal

B. Even when considering certain favorable circumstances for the defendant, such as the fact that the actual damage caused by each of the crimes in this case committed by the defendant on the assertion of unfair sentencing was not significant, and that the defendant has divided and reflected the crimes in this case, the defendant's each of the crimes in this case committed by the defendant is likely to cause enormous damage to the defendant's life, body, property, etc. due to the defendant's fire-prevention act, in light of the fact that many victims are forced to suffer enormous damage to the defendant's life, body, property, etc. due to the defendant's fire-prevention act, it is inevitable to punish the defendant, and even if the defendant committed the crime in this case, it is highly likely that the defendant's act of the defendant is dangerous in view of the fact that the crime in this case committed again by the defendant, such as committing the attempted crime again by the defendant, even though he was committed by the two military forces,