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

On March 22, 2015, the Defendant: (a) violated his duty of care to avoid forest prevention without taking appropriate measures to prevent forest fires at the closing party of the performance of the right to demand the performance of the right to demand the performance of the right to demand the performance of the right to demand the performance of the right to demand the performance of the right to demand the performance of the right to demand the performance of the right to demand the performance of the right to demand the performance of the right to demand the performance of the right, and (b) caused negligence to spread to another person’s forest owned by another person, such as neighboring D

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report on the offender by the police;

1. Calculation details of damage caused by a forest fire, on-site photographs of the place where the forest fire has occurred, and application of statutes governing the airline where it

1. Article 53 (4) of the Forest Protection Act and Article 53 (4) of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the selection of sentence;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Circumstances unfavorable to the reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act: The area of a forest destroyed by a fire by the defendant's negligence and the amount of recovery from damage: The favorable circumstances: The radius of his mistake and the same kind of crime have no record;

In light of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the commission of the crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and other factors such as sentencing prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 51 of the Criminal Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.