The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of each of the instant crimes, was in a state of mental disability that was unable to control his/her own behavior due to mental illness, such as a extreme depression and depression, etc., but did not reduce the degree of mental disability, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact.

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

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the claim of mental disability, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant was in a state of mental disability as seen above because he did not take drugs that had been used for a long time due to mental disease, but did not take drugs at the time of each of the larceny crimes in this case, and did not take drugs at the time of the crime of fire prevention in this case.

According to the records, the fact that the defendant received medical treatment for mental illness such as long-term depression, received emergency treatment for excessive exemption around October 2016, and reported the CCTV's form, but it is recognized that each thief stated in the investigation agency that each thief did not memory at all.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it does not seem that the Defendant had the weak ability 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.

① At the police and prosecutorial investigation stage, the Defendant is relatively accurate in relation to the crime of fire prevention of this case, such as the process leading up to the place of crime, the process leading up to fire, the circumstances leading up to leaving the scene immediately after the crime, and the detailed and logical statement about the situation leading to leaving the scene.

② In addition, the Defendant’s office and so-called “D”, which is the place where the crime of fire prevention was committed.