A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a tenant who has resided in 201 in the 3rd floor building of the wall structure and the 3rd floor owned by the victim D in Ansan-si, Ansan-si.

On March 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) had been under stress on the fact that Neman reported his own appearance to the Chinese people; and (b) had a portable gas tape on the room floor of the above residence where the Defendant was living; (c) had the oil de facto suspended; and (d) had the gas fire attached to it, and had it spread to the entire room of approximately 23 square meters of the size of 23 square meters.

Accordingly, the defendant, who used a total of seven households as a residence, destroyed the room that the defendant was living in the above building to the extent of about KRW 10 million for repairing costs.

Summary of Evidence

1. Recording notes of the examination (1, 2 times);

1. Statement of the police statement of the victim;

1. Application of the statutes as a result of fire fighting;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. As to the defendant's assertion of Article 62-2 of the Probation Criminal Act and his defense counsel, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant had no intention of fire prevention at the time of committing the crime of this case, each statement made by the police and the prosecutor's office of the defendant to the effect that

Even in cases where there is dolusent perception about the fact that a building, etc. may be destroyed by a fire, not necessarily required for the establishment of the crime of fire against the present owner's building, but is not necessarily required for a conclusive intention on the result of the fire, and that there is an intentional perception of the fact that the building, etc. may be destroyed by his own act. The following circumstances revealed from the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, i.e., the police officer as to the reason why the defendant was temporarily able to turn on a