One petroleum tank (No. 1) seized shall be confiscated.

The Defendant, around 05:00 on November 27, 2013, around 05:0, on the ground that, in front of the victim D’s operation in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the Defendant borrowed from his father and the leased site to the above victim was not returned to his father, it was difficult to say that the repair cost would be KRW 18,160,000 on the ground that the Defendant spreaded petroleum prepared in advance on the back wall of the wooden joint board to a newspaper with a single-use log with a fire, and that the amount of repair cost would not be exceeded, and that the Defendant would not be returned to his father.

Accordingly, the defendant destroyed the above buildings that were used as dwelling by setting fire.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. Written statements D and I;

1. The list of seized articles and photographs thereof;

1. Investigation report;

1. Application of statutes on estimates to be submitted to G and details of damage from D submitted;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act ( Taking into account that the defendant has no criminal record of the same kind or imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment);

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Confiscation Criminal Code [the decision of type] general criteria for fire prevention [the scope of recommending sentence] 2 years to 5 years (basic area] (the decision of sentencing] of imprisonment, 2 years to 5 years (the basic area] of imprisonment, and the crime of this case was committed against a building in which the defendant resides in as the reason for "for the defendant promoting his own economic interests," and the act itself was likely to cause property damage as well as property damage. Thus, the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good. Thus, in light of the fact that the owner of the building and the lessee of the building did not take measures to change the nature of the crime and the fact that the victim did not receive the statements from the victims, it cannot be said that the criminal liability of the defendant is excessive.