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

The Defendant thought that his former birth was bullying every day while living in a house located in the Gyeong-si and had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to the early death of the Defendant, and thought that he was harassing himself in the house above.

Around 03:00 on April 26, 2017, the Defendant putting lux oil purchased prior to around 03:00, which was in possession of water in front of the above house where D et al. al. was locked on the same day. In front of the above house where D et al. was locked, one copy, a medium at the right-hand entrance part, was carried in front of the above house, and the Defendant was in possession of a lux in the embankment connected with the above house, and was was put in a lux with a lux, which was in possession of a lux in the above house. However, the Defendant did not put the luxle to a luxus that was in front of the above house entrance, and left the lux to a lux, but did not naturally leave the scene, and did not commit any attempted act.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Report on internal investigation (Evidence No. 3), investigation report (Evidence No. 7 through 11, 17)

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. On-site reporting on results of field identification, and response to requests for appraisal;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of a medical certificate;

1. Article 174 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for a limited term;

1. Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act to mitigate mental and physical weakness (the Defendant, after being hospitalized in around 2002 due to the outbreak of early illness, is repeatedly hospitalized and discharged and under medical treatment until the recent years, and the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, went to commit the crime in which he/she attempted to cause harm to himself/herself. In full view of the following, the Defendant recognized that the Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, had a state where he/she had the ability to discern things or make decisions by distinguishing things from his/her will.

1. Article 25(2) of the Criminal Act provides that an attempted mitigation shall be mitigated.