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

피고인은 2018. 10. 12. 16:50경 서울 서대문 B 1층에 있는 피해자 C의 거주지에서 피고인의 아버지로서 치매가 있는 피해자가 소리지르며 옷을 갈아입지 않겠다고 하자 이에 화가 나 피해자에게 “나 불지른다”고 말하고, 피해자가 “그래 질러라”라고 하자 소지하고 있던 라이터를 이용하여 그곳에 놓여있던 옷가지에 불을 붙였는데, 장판 등에 불이 옮겨붙자 겁을 먹고 소화기를 사용하여 스스로 불을 껐다.

Accordingly, the defendant was trying to fire a building in which people exist by setting fire and attempted to commit it.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. The police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Application of seized articles, photographs and on-site photographs Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

1. Articles 26 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for attempted suspension and mitigation;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation Act;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment for not less than nine months but not more than seven years and not more than six months;

2. Scope of recommending sentencing criteria: The fact that the sentencing criteria do not apply to an attempted crime; and

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months, suspension of execution for 2 years (an 40-hour period of mental therapy course), and the crime of this case under subparagraph 1 of confiscation evidence intending to prevent a fire in a residential area where the family members live together with attempts, and expressed their dissatisfaction as an act that may lead to a large damage to a large number of lives, bodies, and property including their family members. Thus, if there is no possibility of criticism on the motive and circumstances, and if a fire did not occur, the defendant is not guilty.