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

On May 29, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 23:30 on May 29, 2015, at FE-2 office operated by the victim E in Suwon-si, Suwon-si; (b) the victim did not pay the money borrowed from the Defendant; (c) cut the gas ice from the Defendant; and (d) tried to extinguish gas by attaching gas to the gas stack; (c) however, the damaged person attempted to cut fire by taking the location of gas shield.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement protocol by the police for E;

1. Police investigation report (in-depth investigation, such as site conditions);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs and gas pipes of public use of crime, and cut-off photographs;

1. Relevant Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense (opportune imprisonment with labor);

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the defendant among the grounds for sentencing);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the foregoing regular consideration)

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

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria: since they are minor offenders, the sentencing criteria shall not apply.

3. The crime of this case, when considering the fact that the Defendant committed the crime of this case during the suspended execution period, after cutting the gas source of the marina office operated by the victim, and then setting fire to an attempted crime of this case by attaching gas fire, is highly dangerous, and the Defendant committed the crime of this case, the crime of this case is heavy.

However, the suspension of execution shall be sentenced in consideration of the fact that the defendant agreed smoothly with the victim, that the defendant committed a contingent crime in the course of demanding the repayment of a debt to the victim, that the crime was committed, that was attempted, the actual damage to property is not substantial, and that his mistake is in profoundly against his/her own mistake.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.