When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant is a person who prepares a summary summary as the main kitchen of the food department in the B cafeteria.

On July 22, 2014, around 11:13, the Defendant had a duty of care to continuously observe the ethics while regulating the influority of edible milk as it was predicted that food milk would be put up, and that the Defendant had a duty of care to continue to observe it.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and destroyed the “B” restaurant room operated by the victim D (year 47 years old, South) by burning a middle-style cooking boat, which was 11:18 on the same day on the same day, by burning it to a middle-style cooking boat upper upper part of the food cooking boat, with a fire caused by the victim D (year 47 years old, South).

As a result, the Defendant caused the repair dog damage to the Cdong buildings and neighboring commercial buildings, including approximately KRW 190 million in repair dog with B, “Lerbner replacement,” etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of E, F, and D;

1. Fire scene photographs and a fire site survey report;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigation report (a quotation submitted by the B operator D), an investigation report, and a written estimate for damage to neighboring commercial buildings;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Articles 171 and 170(1) of the Criminal Act of the choice of punishment, and the selection of fines (including the fact that the result of the negligence of the accused is great, but the damage of the victims is presumed to have been recovered due to fire insurance, and the victim D's wife against the accused, etc.);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. It is so decided as per Disposition for not less than Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.