except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On July 9, 2014, the Defendant was hospitalized in the "Yeongsan Hospital", the hospital head, who is located in Incheon, for the treatment of alcohol addiction around July 9, 2014.

On July 16, 2014: around 00, the Defendant: (a) was isolated by the guardian of the above hospital on the ground that he was absent from and drinking alcohol; (b) the Defendant: (c) destroyed the above hospital by attaching fire to the bend in the bend in the bend in the bend in the bend in the bend in the bend in the sond in the bend in the bend in the bend in the afterth in the sond in the bend in the bend in the sond in the bend in the bend in the bend in the sond in the sond in the manner; (d) but (e) was not realized by the hospital’s guardian before being removed from the building.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of the Si/Gun/Gu in need of witness, and of the Si/Gun/Gu in Ansan;

1. Statement of the police to ○○○;

1. On-site photographs;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Articles 174 and 164(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 (Attempted Crime) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating Conditions among the Reasons for Sentencing)

Reasons for sentencing

Fire-prevention crimes such as this case are likely to cause property damage as well as human life damage. In particular, the place where the defendant attempted to commit fire-prevention was a hospital in which many and unspecified persons are hospitalized, which could cause huge damage if they were not immediately fighting in a scarcity. The defendant has a history of being sentenced to suspended sentence for the same crime.

However, the Defendant acknowledges and reflects his mistake. Alongly, the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission

In addition, all the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant, shall be considered as the order.

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant was hospitalized in the hospital site in Incheon-gun for the treatment of alcohol addiction around July 9, 2014, the Defendant was hospitalized in the “Yeongsan Hospital for the operation of the hospital site in Incheon-gun for the treatment of alcohol addiction.” At around 14:0 on July 16, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was isolated into the hospital’s protection room on the ground that the hospital was absent or drinking alcohol; (b) the instant hospital was isolated into the hospital’s protection room on the ground that the instant hospital’s care room was isolated; and (c) the one-day log, which was kept in the container, was put in the container’s storage in the said stable room, and gave a fire to the other day in the above stable room. Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed part of the hospital’s 120,000 won at the time the maximum ○○, the protected company, and the patient, etc. was currently owned by the hospital.

2. Determination

The crime of fire prevention is an instrumentable one when the crime of fire prevention has been committed in a state of burning by himself, regardless of the mediating power (see Supreme Court Decision 70Do330, Mar. 24, 1970). In the case of a structure fire prevention, it is necessary to have a state of continuing burning by attaching the body to the body of an object that can be separated without damaging the water, so if the crime is committed to the extent that the fire is attached to the object that can be separated without damaging the water, it cannot be recognized that it has reached the state of independent combustion.

As to the instant case, the following circumstances are acknowledged according to the foregoing evidence.

In other words, the stabilization room, which is the place where the fire of this case occurred, consists of the wall and floor of this case, which was originally a toilet, as the general date. The outside of the ceiling, is made of wood. According to the on-site photographs, the outside of the ceiling, including wood inside the ceiling, was put to the wall or ceiling of the building in addition to the pipe, and it does not seem to have been ensured that there was fire-fighting. ② At the time of fire-fighting, △△△△ and △△△△△, which was located in the protection station where the fire of this case was extinguishing at the time, was discovered, and the fire-fighting of this case was not carried out in the stable room, and the fire-fighting of this case was not carried out later. ② The fire-fighting of this case was not carried out by the head of the △△△△△△△, which was the last time of the fire-fighting station, and the fire-fighting of this case was not carried out.

In full view of the above legal principles, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant's failure to attach it to the stable room due to the failure attached to the defendant's bet and that the defendant's bet the defendant's bet the defendant's bet the defendant's bet the defendant's bet the defendant's bet the defendant's bet the defendant's bet the wall or the tent itself, i.e., an object that cannot be separated from the above hospital, and there is no evidence to acknowledge

3. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as it is found to be guilty of a crime of attempted fire-prevention contained in the above facts charged, the judgment of

jury verdict and sentencing opinion

1. A verdict of guilt or innocence;

- Crimes of cutting-on buildings and fire-fighting water: Ten persons;

- Crimes of attempted fire-prevention of a fluoring structure (unauthorized fluoring): Seven persons (unauthorized fluoring)

2. Opinions on sentencing

- One year of imprisonment, three years of stay of execution: seven persons (one full term of imprisonment);

For more than one reason, this case against the defendant is judged as ordered through a participatory trial according to his wishes.

판사 김샛별

Judges Shin Sung-sung