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

1. The Defendant written the instant indictment at around April 14, 2012, on the ground that he/she was economically difficult to do so because he/she was in his/her own position, and around April 14, 2012, the Defendant appears to have written the instant indictment “ around 01:07, April 12, 2012,” but it appears to be a clerical error in the instant indictment “ around 01:07, April 14, 2012.”

In the first floor of the Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B building, a fire was to be burned by using a racker in advance, which was located in the display stand by the D fireworks house operated by C.

Accordingly, the defendant set fire to the fire and set fire to cause public danger.

2. On April 14, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 01:17, on the foregoing grounds, caused the Defendant to extinguish with fire a banner installed in front of the “G” building operated by the F located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E.

Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed a banner owned by F by setting fire and caused public danger.

Summary of Evidence

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Each police statement made to H, C, and F;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of reporters and photographs of damaged sites;

1. Article 167 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 167 of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts and the selection of punishment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment as provided for in Article 2 of the Judgment with heavier punishment);

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of the suspended sentence under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing as follows) is a matter owned by the Defendant two times at night, which may cause serious social risks to the life and property of another. In light of the fact that the Defendant may cause serious damage to the life and property of another person, it is necessary to hold the Defendant liable with strict liability corresponding thereto.

However, the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case in a contingent manner, which has a little economic difficulty, and the degree of damage caused by the crime of this case is relatively minor.