The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

A seized Rater (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the record on the assertion of mental and physical disorder among the grounds for appeal, even though the defendant was found to have a drinking condition at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant had no ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, such as the circumstances leading to the crime, the means and methods of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime of this case, in particular, the defendant, immediately after the crime of this case, was committed by the police officer, who was informed of his resident numbers and informed his own place of registration to his residence, and falsely inform him of his name as "H" other than his name as his domicile. In light of the investigation record 54,151,17.

did not appear to have existed in or weak condition.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Ex officio determination

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) around 00:40 on December 16, 2012, at around 00:40, the Defendant: (b) was unable to identify the name of the victim by using a disposable dog for a single-use shop in front of the Fow-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun; and (c) caused public danger by putting the victim’s wastes out of the waste accumulated at the place.

B. Article 167(2) of the Criminal Act provides that when an article which is the object of a fire prevention belongs to the possession of one's own property, it shall be mitigated and punished. The crime of fire prevention is the first protective interest in the public safety, but the second one may be deemed to protect an individual's property right. The fact that the fire prevention does not infringe another's property right when an article which is the object of a fire prevention belongs to one's own property is prevented.