The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

1. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the instant facts charged constituted a fire-fighting of general goods.

In doing so, the part of the verdict of the court below as to the part of the crime of assault and the crime of destroying existing buildings, which only the defendant was guilty, was appealed on the ground of mental and physical weakness and unfair sentencing, but the prosecutor did not appeal. As such, the part of the acquittal, which was not guilty in accordance with the principle of indivisible appeal, was also transferred to this court along with the convicted part. However, even though it had already been exempted from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and it cannot be determined as to that part (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5014, Oct. 28, 2004; 2009Do12934, Jan. 14, 2010, etc.). Accordingly, the decision of the court below as to the part of the acquittal as above is to be followed and it is not determined separately.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. The Defendant had mental and physical weakness at the time of committing each of the instant crimes.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years and six months, etc. of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. In light of the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mental and physical weakness and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes.

The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① At an investigative agency, the Defendant not only explained the victim D in detail when the victim was pepeced, but also made it time to consider that the Defendant would have attempted to take a female-specing care after the female-specing.

"When a woman was made under the circumstances in which sexual harassment was made."

Specific crimes to the effect that “” is committed.