The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not have any fact of fire prevention, and did not have intention to prevent a fire, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the charges in this case.

B. Despite the fact that the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was physically and mentally lost due to the Defendant’s death, the lower court committed a mistake that did not recognize the Defendant’s mental and physical loss.

(c)

The punishment (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence admitted by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant intentionally committed the crime of fire prevention of this case. Thus, the allegation of misunderstanding of facts is without

B. As to the assertion of mental and physical loss, the Defendant had already asserted to the same effect as the argument of mental and physical loss, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s above assertion on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning. In light of the records of this case, the lower court’s judgment

There is no reason to assert mental loss.

(c)

The circumstances that are disadvantageous to the argument of sentencing: The crime of this case is very poor because of the fire that caused approximately KRW 20,003,985 to be caused by the sum of the repair cost by the defendant's apartment elevator being used as a residence by many residents.

A favorable circumstances: The defendant committed the crime of this case in a state of mental and physical weakness due to early illness.

There is no history of criminal punishment for the defendant.

The defendant suffered from early illness for a long time and voluntarily received medical treatment at a mental hospital. As to the crime of this case, the first offender, there is a risk of recidivism if the defendant does not receive proper medical treatment.

It seems necessary to improve edification throughout the study.