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

Around 10:00 on January 21, 2015, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the above structure to be used as a residence by putting a fire into a fluor with a fluor in a fluoralter in a fluoral state while under the influence of alcohol, on the ground that the Defendant did not fluorize her horse within the Defendant’s residential premises located in Sinpo City C, 518 Do 806 (D apartment). However, the Defendant did not commit an attempted act without having the intent to fluorize the fluor by reporting the fluoring of the fluor by himself/herself at the wind.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Investigative reports (Hearing statements, such as E of expert witnesses);

1. Seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to on-site photographs (record No. 19 pages);

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

1. Statutory mitigation under Articles 26 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act on Probation and Order to Attend Courses;

1. For the reason of sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act, the crimes of current owner's building and attempted crime of arson are serious crimes that may cause property damage and human life damage, and the nature of such crimes is not minor;

However, in light of the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined in light of the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, the damage caused by the crime of this case is minor, the crime is committed against the attempted crime, and there is no other criminal record other than the fine once.