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 July 12, 2015, the Defendant was demanded to pay excessive liquor at the above entertainment drinking point operated by the victim E located in YY-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on July 12, 2015.

In light of the above circumstances, the above building was destroyed by setting fire to the building through the electric power distribution machine with a studio attached to the wall of the first floor of the building of the above entertainment shop, while the victim was refused to return money from the victim, and the victim was unable to enter the building by correcting the entrance door of the above entertainment shop. However, the victim attempted to destroy the above building by putting the studio to the above studio studio studio studio studio studio studio studio studio studio studio studio studio.

Thus, the defendant was trying to fire a building in which people exist by setting fire.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Each investigation report and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the report;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. Article 25 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act, which is statutory mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Consideration of favorable circumstances among the following grounds for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for one year and six months to fifteen years; and

2. The sentencing guidelines do not apply to the instant crime since it is a single crime.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months, and the crime of this case for two years of suspended execution is committed by the defendant who attempted to attach a fire to an amusement main store due to the drinking value of the amusement main store, and the crime of this case is heavy in view of the risk of the crime.

However, the fact that the defendant commits a contingent crime, the fact that the crime was committed, and the actual damage was not caused by the attempted crime, the victim does not want the punishment under an agreement with the victim, and the same type of the defendant.