1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months;

2. Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3.

Punishment of the crime

On September 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 02:45 on September 8, 2013, on the ground that, in front of “D’s “D” operation in Ansan-si, a female-friendly job offering F, who resides in the rooftop of the apartment tower of the building E on the ground in the width thereof, opened a door; (b) attached a newspaper site and a studio near the wall on the above body and attached a studio to the wall; and (c) attached the studio to the said wall.

As a result, the Defendant destroyed the wall on the above solid object, which is a general object, to be approximately KRW 808,00 for repair cost, and caused public danger.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

2. Each police statement concerning C and F;

3. Written estimate.

4. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on results of field identification.

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

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

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

4. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of probation and community service order;

1. The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for six months to five years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Determination of types: Fire-Prevention Crime Group - Type 3 of general standards (general goods and fire-prevention);

(b) Special amnesty: Where actual damage is insignificant;

(c) Scope of recommending punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months nor more than one year;

3. Criteria for suspension of execution;

(a) Major reasons for participation: Where actual damage is insignificant (a).

(b) Reasons for general participation: There is no previous conviction or more than a stay of execution, and contingent crimes (2) negative factors: no effort to recover from damage;

4. The crime of this case, which was determined to be sentenced, is deemed to have destroyed a wall on the water by setting fire in the heart, and the risk of spreading a nearby building or facility, etc., if to the extent that the crime of this case is likely to have been destroyed, not only the nature of the crime but also the fact that the crime is not good, but also the crime is not yet taken against the victim. In light of the above, the Defendant’s liability cannot be deemed to be less.