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 two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On April 29, 2019, around 22:00, the Defendant drinked E and drinking, which is the Defendant’s residence in C Apartment D, which is the Defendant’s residential area in Macheon City B, and found the horses from the Defendant, and caused the gas from the Plaintiff to be cut off, and the gas from the gas in the gas pipe was found to be cut out, and the gas in the gas pipe was cut out into the gas pipe, and the gas can be cut off to the gas pipe, and the gas can be cut off to the gas pipe installed above the gas generator by attaching the gas pipe to the above gas pipe. Although the Defendant continued to put the gas pipe on the container, the Defendant’s fire extinguishing machine was turned out on the container, but the Defendant did not attach it to the buildings that found the fire extinguishing machine.

Accordingly, the defendant was trying to fire all of the dwellings of the defendant who is used by family members, E, etc. for residential purpose.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written statement;

1. Application of investigation reports (including fire prevention sites and photographs of damaged parts), investigation reports (including details of damage, etc.) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel stated to the effect that they committed contingent crimes while recognizing the instant crime even though they were aware of the instant crime.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the defendant committed the instant crime in light of the allegations that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant crime.