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

The defendant has been able to take long-term care of 206 EFF in the operation of the victim D in Seongbuk-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul, and delayed accommodation expenses for about one year.

The Defendant, upon receiving a request from the victim who came to know that he was cooking in the above 206, tried to burns the above part of the building, which was the main building, by attaching a fire to the bed and knife with a single-use knife, etc. on October 29, 2013, around 06:00 and around 07:40 on October 29, 2013. However, the Defendant attempted to fire the above part of the building, which was the main building, but was attempted to commit an attempted crime due to the extinguishment of the victim by reporting that the postponement occurred.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. The statement of each police officer made to F and G;

1. On-site identification records of the case;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to an investigation report (report accompanying accompanying documents);

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. Since the suspended sentence is an attempted criminal of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, the sentencing standard is not applicable.

The crime of this case is committed in light of the fact that the defendant was dissatisfied with the request for the prohibition of cooking at the guest room in which he had resided for several years, and the crime of this case brought about a risk that may cause serious damage to the life, body, and property of the general public as a result of the attempted crime, and the victim re-influences even after the extinguishment of the crime, and denies the crime by a vindication that is difficult to accept in the investigative agency due to the circumstantial reason, etc., it cannot be deemed that the crime of this case is light, and therefore, the defendant is bound to bear responsibility corresponding thereto.

However, the defendant is led to confession in this court, and there is no record of the same criminal records and severe punishment, and the crime itself was committed by discovering and extinguishing the delay, and the scale of property damage is relatively minor.