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

On July 2015, the Defendant: (a) was retired from around 6 years’ work such as cleaning, building management, etc. in the victim C’s “Stock Company D”; (b) was a person who retired from around 2015; and (c) the victim did not interfere with the management of industrial accident compensation without paying retirement allowances; and (d) was willing to enter the company’s office with his own life and commit suicide.

1. On September 12, 2016, the Defendant invadedd a structure: (a) around 03:01, the Defendant carried gasoline 5 L (liter) contained in plastic lines, 2 but entered the second floor of the company’s building located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, into the 2nd floor through its windows, carrying the said company’s building behind the building in Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd on the building managed by the damaged person.

2. The Defendant, in preparation for fire prevention of a general structure, spreaded 5 L of gasoline (liter) prepared as above at the floor to spread fire to the above office at the time and place specified in paragraph 1, and put a gas into the strings, and fluored down the gas into the strings, and fluored it.

Accordingly, the defendant prepared for the purpose of setting fire to a structure and setting fire to it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made to C;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. A report on internal investigation (on-site search and specification of a suspected suspect);

1. Application of statutes on field photographs;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, Articles 175 and 166 (1) of the Criminal Act (the preliminary points of setting fire to general buildings) and Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act (the points of intrusion upon buildings, the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution provides that the Defendant’s act of sentencing for the reason of sentencing is subject to considerable mental impulse, and the victim’s attempted words and behavior that may cause threat to the offender cannot be deemed to be light.

On the other hand, the defendant did not reach a fire prevention and the result is dangerous.