However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On September 1, 2014, at around 23:50, the Defendant: (a) purchased a small gasoline tank and four balls in the nearby part of the Defendant’s residence, which is a female living together, at the Defendant’s residence, Dadong C, 302, and neglected to do so; (b) purchased at the nearby part of the Defendant, one gasoline tank and four balls, which were string off on the part of the inside part of the said residence; and (c) tried to extinguish the Defendant’s residence, which was living together with D with D, by putting gasoline on the bed and booms, which were: (a) laid off on the part of the Defendant’s residence; and (b) attempted to extinguish the Defendant’s residence, which was frightened with D; and (d) attempted to use the bed by D with the wind.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each photograph (Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the evidence list);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for one year and six months to fifteen years; and

2. Determination of sentence: One year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution (the sentencing criteria are not applicable to the crime of attempted fire-prevention). The crime of this case is a fire-fighting by setting fire to the residential place where the defendant was living together in dispute with his female living together, and in light of the fact that there is a high social risk from fire and that there was a high risk of spreading the fire by setting the same as the above, the liability for the crime of this case is not easy.

However, the defendant seems to have committed a crime contingent on carics, and the fact that his mistake is divided and reflected, and the crime is committed in an attempted crime and is fire early.