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

On February 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) sold 10 liters prepared in advance on the floor of a ward for the reason that the victim D (39 years old) was in a de facto marital relationship with each other due to the external problems as set forth in the preceding day of the said 39 year; (b) sold 10 literss of the same in advance on the floor of the ward for the reason that she was in a de facto marital relationship; (c) however, the Defendant did not cut the cigarette by himself/herself and put a fire on the floor; and (d) put the remainder of the same in circulation, such as refinites, on the ground that she did not put the cigarette on the floor; and (d) attached a sofinter (Evidence No. 2) by putting the finites of refinites on the floor, but did not lead to an attempted attempt by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to D;

1. Seized articles and on-site photographs;

1. Application of the existing Acts and subordinate statutes of seizedRater (No. 2);

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. Mitigation of attempted punishment: Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. The community service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

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. Sentencing is not applicable because the sentencing sentencing is not determined.

The crime of this case, 1 year and 6 months of imprisonment, and 2 year of suspended execution, can not be deemed to be less than the defendant's responsibility in that it could cause serious damage to the lives and property of many people if the defendant attempted to spread out much in the brusing length, by spreading the light oil prepared in advance by the defendant on the floor of the living room.

However, there are more favorable circumstances such as the fact that there was no special loss of human life or damage to property due to the absence of influence, the fact that the defendant led to the crime of this case and reflects his mistake in depth, and that there was no history of punishment.