However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On March 1, 2020, around 05:27, the Defendant: (a) waiting a bus at the bus stops located in front of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul building B; (b) without any particular reason, the Defendant: (c) destroyed the object owned by another person and caused public danger by setting fire to two banners (or a market price equivalent to 500,000 won) installed by the victim C among the street trees adjacent to the bus stops; and (d) caused a state in which the fire can be burned up and burned up on the street trees.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. The application of the Act and subordinate statutes to Chapter C of the Statement Statement Report (Analysis of Image Data) and the CD 1;

1. Article 167 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the foregoing grounds)

1. The scope of punishment by law: Six months to five years of imprisonment;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing guidelines [the scope of the recommended punishment [the type 3] general standards : Fire prevention [the special sentencing factors] of goods in general (the person who is in charge of sentencing]: In cases where punishment is not granted or damage has been recovered from considerable parts of punishment [ the territory of recommendation and the scope of the recommended punishment] mitigated area, six months to one year.

3. The crime of fire prevention of this case committed by the Defendant who was sentenced to the sentence is a crime detrimental to public safety and peace, which may cause serious damage to a large number of lives, bodies or property, and thus, there is a lot of risk and possibility of criticism.

However, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime with no view to his wife while serving in the new wall and returning home home, and appears to have committed the instant crime contingently, and the damage incurred by the instant crime appears to have been relatively minor, and the Defendant reimbursed KRW 500,000 to the victim, and the Defendant is a primary offender who has no record of criminal punishment and is against the punishment of the instant crime, etc., within the scope of the mitigated term of imprisonment.