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

On December 23, 2013, around 13:44 on December 23, 2013, the Defendant, at his house attached to the victim D’s residence in Yongcheon-si C, destroyed the Defendant’s husband by setting fire to the paper, which prevents the space between the eaves of the roof of the warehouse owned by the victim and the outer wall, with a fireproof tool, but the Defendant’s husband discovered that the fire occurred.

Accordingly, the defendant tried to destroy a fire to a warehouse in the residence used as a residence, but did not achieve the intent, but did not commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Application of each internal investigation report and investigation report (including attached documents), CCTV afforestation CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Article 25 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of attempted crimes;

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

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the grounds for sentencing that are advantageous to the following)

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

2. That the sentencing criteria are not directly applied because the scope of recommending punishment according to the sentencing criteria is attempted;

3. The crime of this case, which was determined to be sentenced, is an attempted attempt to extinguish the victim's warehouse attached to his residence by setting fire to the victim's warehouse, and the crime of this case may cause serious damage to the human life or property, and the liability for the crime is not easy.

In addition, even though criminal facts are sufficiently recognized according to the evidence of the judgment, the criminal facts are denied and the circumstances after the crime are not good.

However, the defendant did not have any previous record, and the fire was early extinguishing by the husband of the defendant.