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

The Defendant had previously lost the wall, but was doubtful of the Defendant’s wife since the cash card on the wall was completely withdrawn from all of the cash deposits in the deposit passbook.

On July 11, 2013, at around 00:10, the Defendant, within 501, which is an apartment house of the Defendant located in Suwon-gu, Busan, and again became extinct, the Defendant came to have the wife C and the vehicle key, and C returned to C, but C did not return it. The Defendant attempted to fire the above apartment house where four generations live, including the Defendant’s family members, by setting a one-time gas engine, and setting fire to the advertising paper, but the Defendant’s wife’s wife failed to have the intention to extinguish water by burning water, and attempted to attempted to commit it. However, the Defendant’s wife E did not come to an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement (part) of witness E and C;

1. An interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (on-site exit situations and site photographs);

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

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigations under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Consideration of favorable circumstances required for the following reasons for sentencing):

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion against the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (refluence of favorable circumstances required for the reasons of sentencing below) of the suspended execution of sentence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da14488, Apr. 2, 2011) asserted that the defendant's defense counsel cannot be deemed to have committed the crime of substantial building and fire-prevention, such as the

However, according to the evidence mentioned above, the Defendant, as his spouse, proved to C, and then attached the advertising paper to the advertising paper.