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

피고인은 2013. 12. 19. 21:05경 구미시 C에 있는 피고인의 집 거실에서 술에 취하여 소리를 지르며 소란을 피우던 중 피고인의 부친인 D로부터 조용히 하라는 등의 잔소리를 듣자 격분하여 소지하고 있던 라이터로 이불에 불을 붙여 피고인과 그의 부모가 주거로 사용하는 위 주택을 소훼하려고 하였으나 이를 발견한 위 D이 급히 이불로 덮어 불을 껐고, 계속하여 피고인은 자신의 방으로 가서 위 라이터로 종이에 불을 붙인 후 이를 위 방에 있던 이불에 옮겨 붙게 하여 재차 위 주택을 소훼하려고 하였으나 위 D이 다시 이불로 덮어 불을 끄는 바람에 미수에 그쳤다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

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

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act is a dangerous crime that could have led to significant damage if the defendant had not been immediately promoted by his father.

However, the defendant does not have a planned fire prevention, but has committed the crime of this case in contingency with the mind that he was frightening after drinking, the crime of this case was committed immediately, and the damage actually occurred as a result of the crime was committed, the damage actually occurred is minor, the defendant's attached Do does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the defendant did not have any past record of the suspended execution, etc. The punishment like the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and circumstances after the crime.