A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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 February 11, 2016, around 16:48, the Defendant sited into a reeded field of the fedle of the 68-ro, Do-ro, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Do-ro, the 68 Do-ro, the Do-ro, the Do-ro, the Do-ro, the Do-ro, the Do-ro, which was under the influence of alcohol, with a fire on a reeded bridge with a portable gas ter, without any particular reason, and had approximately 40 meters in width from the point in f

Accordingly, the defendant caused public danger by destroying approximately 40 meters of wire ropes, 7 posts, tree 4 glus, etc. which are owned by Gwanak-gu.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. C’s statement;

1. A fire site survey report;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 167 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances shall be considered for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the following grounds for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 (1) and the main sentence of Article 62-2 (2) of the Criminal Act to order observation and observation;

1. The scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria [the types of decisions] and the general criteria for fire prevention shall be three types (decision on the area of recommendation] basic areas (decision on the area of recommendation - October - two years);

2. Determination of sentence [unfair circumstances] The instant crime was committed in consideration of the fact that the Defendant destroyed a reed field equivalent to 120 square meters of a dry field with a fire attached to a dry belt and caused public danger, and the Defendant’s liability for the instant crime is not easy, in light of the fact that the fire officer could have caused more fire if the fire officer did not suppress the non-breadth.

[Beneficial circumstances] The value of the goods destroyed by the instant crime is smaller than that of a reed, wooden pole, wire ropes, etc.

The Defendant seems to have caused a somewhat contingent crime in the course of committing the instant case while admitting his wife.

The defendant is divided into and reflected in the crime of this case.

A defendant shall have no record of criminal punishment heavier than that of the same kind of crime.