A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Punishment of the crime

On December 24, 2013, at around 21:05, the Defendant made telephone conversations with E in the Defendant’s petitious residence located in Seogu Daegu, Seogu, on the ground that he did not have the same attitude as that of E, and that E’s mother is not the same as his mother, the Defendant: (a) laid off the clothes of E located in the inside and outside of her house; (b) he stored 10 fronts of E in the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of

Accordingly, the Defendant, who is the owner of D, used as a residence by E, destroyed approximately approximately KRW 59 square meters of the area of the first floor of the above house, which is about KRW 2,50,000,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to D, E, and F;

1. The police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the prosecution, investigation report (Attachment of a report on fire situation), police investigation report (Attachment of a field photograph, a report on site identification), and a report on request for appraisal;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. The judgment of the defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation (the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing below) can be deemed to have asserted that the defendant made a statement that he had drinking much alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime by stating that he had a bad alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

In light of various circumstances, such as the background, means, and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s attitude before and after the instant crime was committed, it cannot be recognized that the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, had lost or weak ability to discern things or make decisions.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and not more than six months but not more than fifteen years;

2. The scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria; and