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 January 9, 2016, the Defendant, at around 16:50, tried to burns the above residence living together with the victim on the ground that there was a dispute between D and telephone call, which is the Defendant’s wife at the Defendant’s house of Busan Jin-gu, Busan, and 6 Do 1406, and the Defendant, at around 16:50, tried to extinguish the Defendant’s house and attempted to commit an attempted act by a fire officer, who was dispatched upon receipt of a report, on the ground that the dispute occurred with D and telephone call, which is the Defendant’s wife.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. 112 Report of the case, report on the results of field identification, request for cooperation with an investigation (report on dispatch to a fire site), and application of statutes to a survey report on actual situation;

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. Scope of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to seven months from September to June;

2. Where the scope of the recommended punishment is subject to general standards for fire prevention (type 1), such as a suspender building (type 1), the area of special mitigation (type 9 to 3 years), the actual damage (special mitigation) is minor, the penalty is not imposed;

3. In light of the fact that the crime of making a decision on a sentence of punishment is highly likely to cause danger to public safety and peace, the defendant's responsibility shall not be minor.

However, the fact that the defendant tried to extinguish the fire on his own before a clerical error has occurred after the defendant was unsatisfyed, that the crime of this case was committed, and the damage was minor, that the defendant's wife who suffered the damage also sought the defendant's wife against the defendant, that the defendant is breaking his depth in depth, and that there is no criminal history other than the suspension of indictment, and that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment in addition to the suspension of indictment.