A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

At around 12:30 on June 20, 2012, the Defendant: (a) destroyed an object amounting to KRW 667,000 at the market price, such as one string, two drums, one oxygen, two air conditioners, two air conditioners, and other air conditioners, which are in custody in the warehouse without any reason under the influence of alcohol, and caused public danger.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Results of the verification of video CDs in this Court;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding E;

1. Delivery of materials according to field identification photographs, requests for cooperation in investigation, description of site photographs, and application of video-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

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

2. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act ( Taking into account the following favorable circumstances):

3. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. The main point of the argument is that there is a fire in the material storage of the victim. However, the defendant did not pay a fire by a container, but the defendant laid away the tobacco that he saw in the process of driving away away from the material storage of the victim at the victim's request. Since the fire is caused by a cigarette, there is no intention to prevent the fire against the defendant.

2. According to the judgment witness D’s legal statement, even though the Defendant was aware of the fact that he laid down in the victim’s material storage prior to the instant crime, that is, the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, namely, (i) there was a dispute with the victim on the ground that the Defendant was less than a daily allowance received from the victim; and (ii) according to CCTV images installed in the instant material storage, the fact that the Defendant was seated at the point where the fire occurred, and that it is not visible to drive away.