2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

On October 7, 2015, the Defendant attached a c-owned fingers on the parking lot that was parked by cars, and attached a c-owned fingers, which were in possession, to the waste contained in the fingers, and had them spread to the abolition and the fingers.

Accordingly, the defendant caused public danger by setting fire to others' property by setting fire.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Statement made by the police against C;

3. Written statements of D;

4. Application of each statute of photography;

1. Article 167 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime;

2. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate small amount;

3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the suspension of execution;

4. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act to order observation of protection.

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months nor more than five years;

2. Scope of the recommended punishment according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Determinations of types: Fire-Fighting Crime Group - General Criteria - Type 3 (Setting fire to general goods);

(b) Special sentencing factors: Ineligible factors for punishment.

(c) Scope of recommending punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to one year (limited area);

3. In this case, the decision of sentence shall be that the defendant fireed the handcils on the top of the parking lot at one night, and the nature of the crime and the circumstances are not good.

If abrupted, it seems that there is a risk that more damage would have occurred to parked vehicles in the fire brigade or parking lot.

In light of these points, the responsibility of the defendant cannot be somewhat applied to the defendant.

However, there are more favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant returned home while drinking alcohol, and the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case by reporting the fingers in front of his house, the confession of his crime and the misunderstanding of his mistake, the fact that he has agreed with C, the owner of ex post facto fingers, there is no record of punishment for the same crime, and there is no record of having been sentenced to punishment for other crimes.

The above points and the age, sex, occupation, and occupation of the defendant.