1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of one year and six months;

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

A. On October 22, 2015, the Defendant: (a) on October 22, 2015, the Defendant was aware of D’s external appearance; (b) he was carrying out a dispute with his female; (c) brought a beer in the beer, flaps on the floor of the kitchen; (d) she was fluencing gas; and (e) was flucing gas bags; and (e) was flucing them on the house; (e) the Defendant was trying to have them spread to the house; (e) however, the Defendant was not able to flucing the fire of D gas and the fire attached to Irts.

Accordingly, the defendant tried to fire a structure used as a residence by setting fire to and burns the structure used by people.

There was an attempted attempt.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

2. Statement made by the police against D;

3. E statements;

4. Application of each statute of photography;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

2. Article 25 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 (unauthorized Crime) of the Criminal Act mitigated by law;

3. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act of the suspended execution.

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months from one year to fifteen years;

2. The sentencing criteria shall not apply to this case, which is not yet applicable, because it falls under the sentence sentence.

This case is about the defendant's attempt to prevent a fire on his apartment by spher own apartment by sphering the width and sphering the gas dust, and sphering his wife into an attempted attempt, and the nature of the crime and the circumstances are not very good.

As the risk of collapse used as a criminal tool increases, it seems that the defendant's house, as well as other households of apartment house, could cause a large damage.

In light of these points, the responsibility of the defendant cannot be considered to be somewhat weak.

However, it appears that the defendant has committed the crime of this case in a contingent manner while drinking, and the crime of this case is about attempted.