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

The defendant is living together with the victim D, who is his wife in Sungnam-si C and the second floor of Sungnam-si.

On February 12, 2016, the defendant, at the small location of the above defendant's residence, tried to have a dispute with the victim, and destroyed the house by setting fire, as a matter of disposal of the stolen property of the defendant's death.

At around 01:00 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) laid down a sppler, which was kept on the rooftop of the above residence, and laid down a flammable which is inflammable substance, into the spam glass of the spam, using a spacker possessed after dusting it on the small floor of the spam branch; (b) on the same day, the Defendant discovered and spacked the spacker; (c) on the same day, the Defendant moved the spacker to the Defendant’s spacker on the floor; but (d) again, the Defendant did not discover and extinguish the spacker, and did not commit an attempted crime.

Accordingly, the defendant is currently suffering from the victim D, and 9 persons tried to destroy a structure used as a residence, but failed to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. Investigation report (to hear statements made in victim D);

1. 112 Reports processing lists and legal chemical appraisers;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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. Orders to observe protection and attend lectures under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act is intended by setting fire to the house in which nine persons, such as the victim D, etc., use as a residence.

As a result, an attempted crime is likely to cause serious fire and damage to human resources and property that could be difficult to recover, and the liability for such crime is not easy.

However, the crime is committed.