A. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, in consideration of the fact that the right of restitution was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crimes.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the Defendant’s act before and after each of the instant crimes in question, the background, means, and methods of each of the instant crimes, etc., it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability with weak capacity to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes.

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability cannot be accepted.

B. The lower court determined on the assertion of unfair sentencing, based on the following: (a) the Defendant’s sentence was imposed on the Defendant; (b) the crime of fire prevention was committed under a unfavorable condition; (c) the serious criminal that does not merely cause property damage; and (d) the considerable amount of damage to life and the social loss therefrom; and (c) the Defendant’s personal injury or large-scale property damage caused by the crime of fire prevention of the present state building; and (d) there was a risk of causing considerable damage to life or large-scale property damage to five persons, such as the new father, etc., using the present state building as a residence; and (e) the Defendant has several times of past force, but it is inevitable for a strict punishment corresponding to his responsibility because the crime of fire prevention was committed; (d) each of the instant crimes was committed during the repeated crime; (e) the damage recovery was not performed at all; and (e) some of the crimes was committed under favorable circumstances; and (e) the amount of damage was a small amount of damage; and (e) the degree of damage

The sentencing of the court below is determined to be proper by fully taking into account the above various circumstances, and before this court.