The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court below are all reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to an attempted crime of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it constitutes an attempted crime since the defendant and the candidate for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter only referred to as the "defendant") reported the unfolded spirit, and subsequently interfered with his behavior and suspended his crime due to his imprisonment.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which did not recognize the attempted suspension is erroneous and adversely affected by the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Although the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and committed an act under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol addiction, the lower court did not consider it. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. Each sentence (the first instance judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, and imprisonment with prison labor for 1 year) imposed by the lower court on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant filed an appeal against each judgment of the lower court, and the appellate court decided to jointly examine both the above appeal cases.

The judgment of the court below on each of the crimes in the concurrent crimes provided for in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is a concurrent crime, and thus, the judgment of the court below on the defendant cannot be maintained any more.

However, the defendant's misunderstanding of facts and the argument of mental suffering is still subject to the judgment of this court.

B. In a case where the Defendant tried to extinguish a building by setting fire or setting a fluor of legal principles, but the fluor of a fluor of a fluor of a building, which caused the fluor of a fire, the Defendant’s fear of playing on the way of the fluoring the fluor of the foregoing case, or causing harm to his physical safety or punishment at the time of the detection of the crime, is an obstacle to