From April 25, 2013, around 06:30 on April 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) tried to extinguish the said house by putting fire into a single string with the outer wall of the house used by the victim Y in X-gu, Y in Y-gu, Y-gu, Y-gu; (b) but (c) failed to carry the said house into an attempted attempt because it was not transferred to the said house.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements, requests for genetic appraisal, reports on requests for appraisal and reports on investigation (attached reports, such as written judgments, etc.);

1. Application of statutes on images of field photographs;

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

1. Article 25 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of attempted crimes;

1. The sentencing guidelines shall not apply to an attempted crime of discretionary mitigation of punishment under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as the following factors of sentencing) as it is an attempted crime of reason for sentencing.

[Scope of Punishment] The act of fire prevention in 10 months from September to July (Pronouncement Decision) was a serious crime that undermines public safety and peace, and the act of fire prevention in 10 months is likely to cause serious damage to the lives, bodies, and property of adjoining neighbors if the brush spreads. Thus, the nature of the crime of this case is not good.

However, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that there is no record of criminal punishment against the defendant at the time of the crime, the fact that the crime was committed in multiple parallel, and there is no actual loss of human life and property damage, and the fact that the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case with drinking and contingency, the punishment shall be determined like the order.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.