One set (No. 1) for a time seized shall be confiscated.

1. On February 23, 2013, at around 12:15, the Defendant damaged the victim’s property by breaking the victim’s property on the ground that the victim’s attitude was shown to disregard the Defendant within the Eda area under the e-mail management of the victim D (the 52-year-old), which was in his/her own e-mail, and having set up one malle of 3,00 won at the victim’s market price on the front side of the table, and destroying the victim’s property by breaking the e-mail of electricity equivalent to KRW 170,000 at the market price of the victim’s possession on the rear side.

2. The Defendant did not commit the attempted crime of the present main structure and fire prevention by taking the brupter who was one’s own possession during the time, at the place, and at the same time and place as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, with the noise of the said multiple employees, which read, “it is only a fluor, fluor, fluor,” and fluoring the said multiple employees into a newspaper that had been on the brue’s face by attaching a fire to the newspaper that had been on the brue, but the said multiple employees did not commit it with the wind that the flue employees did not take the brush, and did not commit the attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. Each police statement made to D or F;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the investigation report;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 366 (Destruction of and Damage to Property, Selection of Imprisonment), 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts (the fact that the present main building, the attempted crime is committed, and the choice of a limited term of imprisonment);

2. Articles 25 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to be legally mitigated (with respect to attempted crimes, and crimes of attempted crimes of temporary owner's building or fire prevention);

3. Of concurrent crimes, the punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment determined for a grave building, structure with heavier punishment).

4. Mitigation of discretionary mitigations under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing):

5. The defendant with reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act shall be sentenced to a punishment for the same kind of crime in 2005.