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

At around 20:00 on September 19, 2014, the Defendant leased the studio owned by the victim D to KRW 1,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 350,000,00, and destroyed the above studio by putting the studio to the wall of the Defendant, by drinking alcohol, and doing a dispute with E, which frequently and late, coming to the house, while drinking alcohol, while coming to the house, and going to the house of E, and going to the house of E, and going to the house of the mobile phone, and going to the wall of this case, by putting the studio in the intersection inside the house, and going to the wall of this case.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to reports on results of field identification and reports on internal investigation;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation;

1. Application of the sentencing criteria [Determination of type] general criteria for fire prevention: In the case of Type 1 (Setting Fire to Present Living Building, etc.) [Special Convicted Persons] penal grounds, or where considerable damage has been restored to the area of mitigation [limited to the area of recommendation and the scope of recommending punishment], range of mitigation range, one year and six months to three years [whether suspended sentence is suspended] - In the case of failure to punish or damage to considerable portion of damage, there shall be no record of criminal punishment (affirmative); and

2. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years, suspended execution for 3 years; the crime of this case was committed by the defendant at the studio where the defendant lives together with his/her ward, and the crime of fire prevention is highly likely to cause property damage as well as human life damage, and the nature of the crime and the crime are not easy.

However, even if the defendant lives in addition to the studio in which he resides, it is difficult to spread the studio to the part where other persons reside, and there is no human life damage, and the fact that the owner of the destroyed studio agreed smoothly with D, which is the owner of the destroyed studio, and the psychological failure certificate due to the studio of the defendant is among the causes for