However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The Defendant was urged to pay the construction cost several times by his husband who was employed by the Defendant due to the failure to receive the construction cost even after being subcontracted by C, and urged C to pay the construction cost several months, but C was found in D office and asked C to pay the construction cost without any income, and if C did not comply with it, he was able to prevent the fire to the above office. On June 1, 2016, the Defendant purchased one stoper from “F” located in Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Gyeyang-gu, and divided the same stop into 11 and divided the same stoper into 11. On the same day, the Defendant was able to cover the bottles and Rabs with the clothes attached to the ceiling and covered with the clothes attached by C around 18:50 on the same day.

As a result, the Defendant prepared a fire prevention for the purpose of setting fire to a building in which people exist.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Police seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs of seized articles;

1. Articles 175 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act relating to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following factors shall be considered in favor of the defendant among the reasons for sentencing);

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The Defendant did not intend to murder the victim C at all, and the knife knife knife knife knife, which was possessed by the Defendant, was a part of his occupation and did not prepare for the purpose of murder.

B. Although the Defendant had a width for the purpose of preventing fire to the existing structure and fire, the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, had a construction work for the Defendant, who is not a D office in which people exist, but still suspended construction.