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

around 07:50 on February 7, 2014, the Defendant had been living together in Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon, about the issue of e and Abscoping.

In the dispute process, the Defendant heard the horses that could not live together with E and posted a stop with a stop with a stop and put a stop with a stop with a stop with a stop and a stop with a stop with a stop with a stop with a stop with a stop with a stop, but tried to extinguish the stop with a stop with a stop with a stop with a stop with a stop with a

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A written statement;

1. Seizure records and the list;

1. Response following a request for cooperation with investigation;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

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. Reasons for sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for one year and six months to fifteen years; and

2. Application of the sentencing criteria: An attempted crime, thus the sentencing criteria shall not apply; and

3. Determination of sentence: One and half years of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution are likely to cause serious danger and injury to human life or property as a crime prejudicial to public safety and peace; and therefore, it constitutes a serious crime by itself.

The crime of this case was committed by setting fire to the residence of tenants, and thus, there was a risk of causing a large number of victims or causing large damage.

The nature of the defendant's crime is not that of the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant is the first offender, and he seems to have committed the crime of this case in a contingent manner.