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

At around 17:40 on March 17, 2013, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the building at the 1st basement of the Defendant’s house of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, which used 7 persons, including C, as a residence; (b) the Defendant was required to obtain a divorce by telephone from the wife of the international married Vietnam; or (c) the Defendant was used as a “child” in a grost; and (d) attached a fire to the bee located in a small area of the said fire to the bee and the bee of the bee and the bee of the bee that had been on the bee and the bee of the bee that had been on the bee and the bee of the bee that had been on the bee and the bee of the bee.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. On-site reporting;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 164 (1) of the Election of Imprisonment or Imprisonment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act. Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62-2(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act and Article 59 of the Act on Probation, Etc. is a fire to the housing where many households reside solely on the grounds that the crime of this case is in dispute with the wife, and in light of the motive and circumstances of the crime, the nature of the crime is not light in light of the motive and circumstance of the crime, and the act of fire prevention is highly dangerous to public safety and peace and may cause serious danger to the lives and property of many people, and thus, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

However, considering the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant is against the defendant, that there is no criminal conviction heavier than a fine, that there was no human life damage caused by the crime of this case, and property damage is relatively minor, that the owner of the damaged structure C and the resident F are not wanting to be punished, etc. In addition, the defendant's age, character and behavior, family environment, circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered.