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

On May 2, 2017, the Defendant returned to the above building that had a large number of people on the ground that he was under employment stress while studying at D2 floor reading rooms located in Pyeongtaek-si around 22:00, while serving in Pyeongtaek-si, the Defendant returned to the inside of the above building. On May 2, 2017, the Defendant posted a fire by using a stringer, attached to the wall side of the second floor elevator, the wall side of the office of the third floor competition and the integrated office of the association, and a stringer attached to the wall inside the elevator, and put a fire into the strings by attaching a fire to the stop of the second floor toilet.

Thus, the defendant tried to fire a building in which people exist by setting fire, but was attempted to commit an attempted crime by extinguishing fire by itself.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. E statements and written certifications of investigation processes;

1. Photographss of the damaged field and CCTV-fags;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of Chapter Two in the paper of a guide that a person under whose name he/she was to put a fire by using a dog;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

1. Mitigation of attempted punishment: Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for one year and six months to fifteen years; and

2. Determination of sentence: A two-year suspended sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the reason that the Defendant was not employed even before the instant crime was committed, and was subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment around 2015 on the ground that he was under stress due to his failure to be employed even before the instant crime was committed; however, in addition, the Defendant’s liability for the instant crime is not weak in light of the fact that there was a large number of human life damage and enormous property damage.

However, the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized, the fact that the defendant currently experienced the defendant seems to have caused the crime of this case, the fact that the continuous medical treatment is expected to be necessary in the future, and the defendant's opinion.