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

From 03:00 on January 5, 2014 to 03:30 on the day of so-called “A” of C Management D, which was located in the Mayang-gu Mayang-gu, Annyang-gu, Annyang-gu, Annyang-si, the Defendant: (a) had the right to discern things due to mental fission; (b) had the right to distinguish things from others; (c) had the right to discern things from others; and (d) had the right to remove things from others by attaching fire to the marith; and (d) had the right to remove things from others.

As a result, the Defendant destroyed the above D Building 212, which is a building in which the number of occupants, including E, exists, with the repair cost of 31.2 million won.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. Comprehensive report on fire occurrence;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on police seizure records;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Articles 10 (2) and (1) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act, which are legally mitigated;

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 consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

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

1. As to the assertion of defense counsel under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act, the defense counsel asserts that the defendant was in a state that he/she had no ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental fission at the time of committing the crime in this case.

According to the records, even though it is recognized that the Defendant was suffering from mental fissions at the time of committing the instant crime, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s mental fissions at the time of committing the instant crime, beyond the state of mental disorder, such as the indicated in the judgment, and the ability to discern things or make decisions, by considering the following: (a) it is difficult to view that the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, went beyond the state of mental disorder such as the indicated in