A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 21, 2014, at around 02:40, the Defendant: (a) destroyed part of the above entrance by putting the advertising place and paper attached to the steel gate of the said main shop to the entrance door of the said main shop by putting the Defendant out of the main shop and locking the entrance door, on the ground that the Defendant, at the “E” bar operated by the victim D, located under the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground C, was drunk and carried out the flabing box on other tables; (b) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol; and (c) the Defendant was fired by the fire officers dispatched after receiving a report prior to being moved to the main shop.

As a result, the defendant tried to extinguish the existing building by fire, but did not commit it but did not commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to record fire scene photographs;

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

1. Article 25 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of attempted crimes;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be repeated in favor of the reasons for sentencing):

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted as to the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Code of Confiscation, asserts that the defendant was in a state of mental disability by drinking alcohol at the time of the crime in this case.

In light of the background of the instant crime, the process of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, etc. acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol to some extent at the time of the instant crime

Even if so, it cannot be seen that the ability to discern things or make a decision is weak. Thus, the above assertion is rejected.

The reasons for sentencing are as follows.