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

On May 10, 2017, at around 21:00, the Defendant: (a) moved a part of the living room (130cm wide, 90cm long) from the dwelling space of the Defendant of the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building 201; (b) by attaching a fluor to the fluored floor of the living room with a breater, which was in the influored length.

Accordingly, the defendant destroyed part of the building used by the defendant and the defendant's wife D as a residence.

Summary of Evidence

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

1. A report on the occurrence of a fire, a report on internal investigation, a report on internal investigation (or a search by other neighboring residents), and a report on the results of erosion at the scene of a fire;

1. Written legal safety appraisal, written legal and chemical appraisal, and fingerprinting as a result of the assessment of the crime scene (2017-8363);

1. A medical certificate;

1. An estimated document of a document;

1. Application of the statutes on photographing photographs inside a fire site, 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 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for the mitigation of mental and physical weakness (see, e.g., Article 2-2(1)6, 7)

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1248, Apr

1. Determination on the assertion of a criminal defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 44-2(1) of the Medical Care, Custody, etc. Act (the grounds for conviction)

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Although the Defendant was unable to memory the situation at the time, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant intentionally caused a fire by using a dog, and rather, it cannot be ruled out that there was a possibility that the Defendant was a fire in the process of avoiding alcohol or the beginning.

B. Even if the Defendant intentionally put a fire, the Defendant intentionally put the fire.

Even if they do not have the power to extinguish, they did not reach the state of burning by themselves, which is a medium of fighting, so they did not have the intention to commit it.

(c)

In addition, the defendant intentionally.