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

On February 14, 2016, at the defendant's house located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul around 20:40, on the ground that the defendant's wife D did not enter the house without any speech after he did a verbal dispute with the defendant, he saw him as a petroleum string, and moved into the house floor of the house, and caused him to move to the household, such as the carpets, etc.

Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed a structure used as a residence by himself, his wife, and children to have approximately KRW 21 million as repair cost.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each statement protocol with respect to E and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each investigation report (on-site photographs, f phone search for witnesses, hearing of suspect DNA statements, etc.);

1. Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 164 of the choice of punishment (Optional to Imprisonment with labor for a period of time);

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following factors shall be considered in favor of the defendant among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act for observation of protection;

1. Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months from six months to fifteen years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria [types] and the general criteria for fire-fighting crimes: Type 1 (Setting the area of recommendation] [Determination of the area of recommendation] mitigation [the scope of recommendation] from 6 months to 3 years.

3. Fire-fighting crimes such as whether a sentence is imposed or not are suspended are serious crimes that may impair public safety and peace and cause serious harm to the lives and property of many citizens.

However, as the subject of fire prevention is jointly owned by the defendant and the wife of the defendant, there is no real and physical victim, the defendant committed the crime of this case excessively and contingently in comparison with usual liquor, the defendant's family and surrounding persons are seeking the defendant's wife, and the defendant is currently residing together with his family.