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

From February 2, 2020, the Defendant resided in D’s D’, D’, which was operated by the Victim C (V and 70 years of age) in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, and was frequently disputed with the victim on the ground that he was living in D’s accommodation with the Defendant’s seat and was able to go together with the said seat. On July 22, 2020, at around 05:00, the Defendant reported the Defendant’s seat with his seat and was in the said female seat, and said, “I must go to go to her seat. I want to go to go to her seat.” The Defendant complained against this, and told the Defendant to spread the starting of the said D’s seat on the said D’s accommodation.

Accordingly, at around 09:00 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) purchased one stop (900ml) from G located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yongsan-gu to his owner of the work; (b) purchased one stop (900ml) from G to his owner of the work; and (c) concealed it in the Defendant’s room.

Accordingly, the defendant prepared a fire prevention with a view to preventing a fire in the d's accommodation, which is a structure in which the victims and many customers live.

Summary of Evidence

1. Application of each recording of the investigation report (G business owner's statement and review of the result of the appraisal of seized articles) to the witness C, I's each legal statement, and witness J's partial statement in court, each record of each investigation report (G business owner's statement and review of the result of

1. Articles 175 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

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

1. It was true that the purchase of a width at the time, place, etc. in the ruling of the defendant's argument as to the defendant's argument as to Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act was kept in the room. However, the purpose was only to catch a quile or put a quile to the victim, not to put the fire

2. The following circumstances acknowledged as the result of the examination of evidence, namely, ① the Defendant was in dispute with the victim for reasons such as drinking alcohol with a person who is not a guest in the hotel No. 5 of the judgment, as indicated in the judgment, and the Defendant was in dispute with the victim. On the preceding day of the instant case, the Defendant was in drinking alcohol with his seal, and the Defendant was in the victim’s new wall Nos. 5 of the instant case on the day of the instant case.