A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

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

1. The fire prevention of the instant building (2016 high 70) was in an internal relationship with the victim C (63 years) from the end of August 2015 to the end of October 2016, the Defendant was in an active relationship with the victim C (63 years). However, after September 10, 2016, the victim was in an active relationship with the victim, such as avoiding the passage of the victim without the Defendant’s telephone.

On September 14, 2016, the Defendant sought to look at the victim's house living together with the victim's spouse E, who is the victim's spouse, around 15:40 on September 14, 2016. However, the Defendant tried to look at the victim's house. However, it appears that the victim's house was unfolded, and the victim did not receive the Defendant's phone, and that the victim did not look at the victim's house, and that he did not look at the victim's house.

Dr. It is so far as possible to do so. However, there is no difference between the two.

V. The sending of the text message “I” and the purchase of one Lter at a G convenience store located in front of the F school of the 16:30 on the same day, and return to the home of the victim again, and return to the home of the victim at around 17:00 on the same day.

In other words, after attaching the fire to the above Rater, the victim's house windows were opened on the side of the victim's house, and the fluor bags with fire attached as above were installed, and the victim's house was loaded on the victim's house and moved to the fluor wall, ceiling, etc.

Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed the above building by setting fire to the building used as a residence by the victim C, etc. so that the building can be repaired.

2. Damage to special property (2016 Gohap 90), on September 10, 2016, the Defendant destroyed the windows and doors of 150,000 won at the market price owned by the victim with each item (135 cm in length, 5 cm in thickness) which is dangerous as the victim C, who was in an internal relationship, returned from the Defendant’s house to the house where E, the spouse of the victim, was living, and returned to the house where the victim’s spouse, was living.

Summary of Evidence

(b).