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

On September 18, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around September 18:38, 2015, at the first floor of the “E” kitchen in Busan Northern-gu C (the age of 67), in which the victim of the said building was leased and used by the victim D (the age of 67) in Busan-gu C, and (b) in which the victim of the said building was not responsible for the Defendant for the construction related to water leakage of the said building; (c) in which the victim was frightened, and destroyed the said building used as a residence; and (d) the Defendant was able to gather plastic pipes, plastic pipes, and plastic bottles, etc. from the kitchen floor to the kitchen floor and put them into a single-use kitchen, but was found before the victim was removed from the said building, and she attempted to fright and fright.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of protocol of seizure and list of seizure, each photograph thereof, and each investigation report (Evidence List Nos. 5, 7, 8);

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 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspended execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the following grounds for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for nine months to seven years;

2. The sentencing criteria shall not apply to the crimes of attempted sentencing decisions.

In light of the fact that there is a minor reason that the defendant was not responsible for construction, and that there is no good motive for the crime, such as leading to the crime of this case, and that the crime of fire prevention is highly likely to cause danger to public safety and peace, etc., the nature of the crime is not easy.

However, the crime of this case was committed in violation of the attempted crime, and the damage was minor, the defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case by contingency, the victim does not want punishment against the defendant, and the defendant has already divided his mistake into depth.