A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

around May 8, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was diagnosed at the Systro Hospital in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, and demanded an operation after undergoing a diagnosis of waste cancer; (b) was in need of a guarantor from the staff of the counseling room of the above hospital; (c) was refused to perform the operation; (d) was 7 liters via a prior preparation at around 13:50 of the same month; and (e) was going to the 3rd floor of the above hospital, and was on the 3rd floor of the above hospital, the security guard of the above hospital, “I am off. I am. I do not refuse to kill. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. and am. I am. I would like to immediately prevent the victim by putting the victim on the building of the above hospital and doing harm to the life and body of patients within the above hospital.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act concerning the crime concerned, and Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The reason for sentencing [the scope of recommending sentence] under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation [the scope of recommending sentence] under the aggravated area (8-2 years), the aggravated area (8-2 years), (8-2 years), or carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles (the decision of sentencing] under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation, where the defendant committed a crime under the threat of collective organizations or multiple authorities, or carried a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles (the decision of sentencing).

As a result of the Defendant’s instant crime, the hospital in which many patients and visitors are located, there was a risk of large human life damage due to a fire, and the investigative agency and this court did not possess a dog and have the intention to actually pay a fire.