A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2017. 12. 5. 08:50 경 목포시 C에 있는 피고인과 피고인의 부친 D이 함께 운영하고 있는 ‘E’ 식당 내에서 피고인의 부친 D이 평소 식당 일을 도와주지 않는다는 이유로 말다툼을 하던 중 화가 나 위 식당에 불을 지를 생각으로, 위 식당 출입구 옆에 있던 보일러용 등유 통을 가지고 와 위 등유 통을 엎어 등 유가 위 식당 바닥에 흐르도록 한 후 “ 우리 같이 죽어 붑시다.

The term “I” was attached to the suspension of the floor of the above restaurant as a disposable-use dog, but the police officer called for after being reported 112, was not in the form of a fire extinguishing machine and the purport was not achieved.

As above, the defendant tried to extinguish the existing building D, the defendant's mother F, and the defendant's living G by setting fire.

There was an attempted attempt.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;

1. On-site investigation reports, and investigation reports (34 pages of investigation records);

1. A report on the results of field identification;

1. 112 Report on the list of reported cases, and report on the situation;

1. Application of the statutes governing business reports, such as field photographs;

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

1. Article 25 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 (Attempted Crimes of Disability) of the Criminal Act mitigated by law;

1. Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the following favorable circumstances deemed to be the grounds for sentencing) of the mitigated amount;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (a favorable circumstance considered as the grounds for sentencing as below), the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the Defendant and his defense counsel were in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol

However, according to the above evidence, it is recognized that the defendant had drinking at the time of the crime, but the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions.