The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

A candidate for medical treatment and custody shall be punished by medical treatment and custody.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Defendant 1 is a quasi-incompetent of mental illness and a candidate for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “Defendant”).

(2) The punishment sentenced by the first instance court of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and unfair under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case.

(b)the sentence sentenced by the first instance court is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Determination:

A. According to the record as to the claim of mental disability, even though the defendant is deemed to have had a certain degree of drinking at the time of the crime of this case, in light of various circumstances such as the background leading up to the crime of this case, the means and method of the crime, and the defendant's act before and after the crime of this case, it is not deemed that the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking at the time of the crime of this case

Therefore, the defendant's argument of mental disability cannot be accepted.

B. The fire-prevention action against the assertion of unfair sentencing is highly likely to pose substantial damage to the lives, bodies, and property of many and unspecified persons, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the allegation of unfair sentencing.

In particular, the crime of this case is due to the fact that the defendant puts the gas in the gas station in which only a number of liters' oil is stored underground at the top of the passage of the defendant, and there is a risk of large witness if he had not been satisfed in the early stage by witnesses, so the crime of this case is not likely to cause large witness, so the crime is still inferior, and the damage to property caused by satisfying fire has not yet been recovered, and the defendant committed another crime at the same time only for two months from the date on which the decision of the suspension of execution was sentenced, even though he was under the suspension of execution due to the same crime, and was not aware of the fact that he again committed the crime.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized his mistake and is in profoundly against himself, and the fire is in the early stage.