1. The judgment below is reversed.
2. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months;
3. However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. A. A. A. A. The Defendant suffered from a depression and a malute disorder, while hospitalized in a mental hospital, and committed the instant crime in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder while being hospitalized in a mental hospital.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
A. According to the record as to the assertion of mental disability or mental retardation, it is recognized that the Defendant suffered from depression and decentralization before committing the instant crime, and thereby was hospitalized in C Hospital, which is the place where the instant crime was committed.
However, in light of the background leading up to the instant crime, the means and method of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to such mental symptoms at the time of the crime.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.
B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the crime of fire prevention of this case is a serious criminal act that may cause serious damage to the lives and property of a large number of persons, and the nature of the crime is not weak.
At the time of the instant crime, there was about 60 persons at the hospital at the time of the instant crime, and in particular, the closed ward where the patient was detained was opened to open a door from the outside, and the patient was able to escape. Therefore, it was obvious that the patient would have a very dangerous result if she could escape from the sick.
The Defendant committed the instant crime on the ground that the guardian was not guilty of the defect in the sanct, and there is a high possibility of criticism on the motive for the crime.
However, the Defendant recognized the instant crime and is against the Defendant.
In addition, the crime of this case was attempted, and there was no loss of human life even though there was no reason to believe that the crime of this case was committed.