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

On November 22, 2017, the Defendant was engaged in melting work to install steel structures on the first floor of a building being newly constructed in Daegu-gu B.

At the time, the sand position panel is immediately attached to the steel frame structure that the defendant had been melting work, and there was a duty of care to prevent fire from spreading, such as the sprinking of flames or the flames coming from the sponsing sprinking, and the sprinking from the sprinking to the inside of the panel, and the panel has a duty of care to prevent fire from spreading, such as the sprinking of flames or the flames coming from the sponsing sprinking.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to prevent a specific part without installing it, and caused the panel to break up the specific part, and caused the interior of the porous panel from the melting string, and caused the interior of the porous panel to break out the flames coming from the melting string, thereby making it up on the inside the building of 202.2 square meters of the floor area of the concrete roof of the steel structure near the French length.

Ultimately, the Defendant destroyed a structure that belongs to the victim C by the above negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Each police statement made with respect to D, C, E, and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on the results of field identification, field photographs verified by the suspect, internal investigation reports, identification photographs, investigation reports (verification, etc. of the intent of punishment of the victim);

1. Articles 171 and 170 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of imprisonment without prison labor for a crime;

1. The fact that the damage caused by the negligence of the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is considerably large, the damage has not yet been repaid until now, the fact that the defendant is against the time of committing the crime in this case, there is no criminal record exceeding the same crime or fine, and other circumstances shown in the argument in this case.