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

Around August 13, 2013, the Defendant found that a person similar to a customer who had not paid the credit amount at the main shop where the Defendant worked before drinking alcohol in a "Dcafeteria" located in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, was found to have driven away from his/her person and put him/her into the Daejeon Seo-gu E building.

The defendant thought that the person who was driving away from the above apartment No. 705 caused the above apartment 705, and opened the door of the above apartment 705, but the person did not get out of the house, and the house owner of the above apartment 602 borrowed the door door of the above apartment 705, which opened the window on the front door of the above apartment 705, and added the defendant's hand, and then moved it to the shoulder of the above apartment 705, but the above apartment security guard discovered and fireed it.

Accordingly, the defendant tried to destroy the above apartment that the victim H uses as a residence, but did not bring about such intent and did not commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. The statement that there was a fact that the defendant moved to the blods of windows that turn on fire as a ground at the time and place recorded in the ruling in this court;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Each statement in the police statement related to G, H and F;

1. Application of each film-related statute to photographs, photographs, and visits of suspects at the scene of the crime;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

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

3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing).

4. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation, etc. Act

1. The summary of the argument was that the defendant moved to the tables of windows, which turn on a rater, but the defendant rendered a ruling at the time.