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

On January 1, 2015, at around 01:15, the Defendant, while drinking alcohol in the “F for the operation of the victim E in front of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government,” sent alcohol to the victim’s wife who misleads the Defendant to believe that the Defendant was not paying food value, and went to the victim’s wife, the Defendant, who was in possession, destroyed part of the wall by setting fire on the wall with the wall wall located in the tent of the front package of the front package of the above package. However, the Defendant got out of it by witnessing the wall.

As a result, the defendant tried to destroy a building in which the victim and many unspecified customers, etc. are present, but did not bring about such intent and did not commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Records of seizure, lists of seizure and photographs of seized articles;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of the victim's tent fire photographs, field photographs and Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 25 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of attempted crimes;

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. Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, the main sentence of Article 59 (1) of the Act on Probation, etc.;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Confiscation Criminal Code are asserted to the effect that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime. Thus, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is recognized that the defendant had drinking alcohol to a certain extent at the time of committing the crime, but it cannot be deemed that the defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above argument is rejected.