A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

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 2014. 5. 22. 12:00 경부터 같은 날 12:20 경까지 사이에 안동시 C에 있는 피해자 D이 운영하는 E 모텔 103호에서 별다른 이유 없이 침대에 있는 이불 1채를 화장실로 가지고 와 라이터로 불을 붙였으나, 불길이 이불 전체로 퍼지는 것을 보자 겁을 먹고 물을 뿌려 불을 껐다.

As a result, the defendant tried to extinguish a Moel toilet used by four persons such as the victim and his family members as a residence.

There was an attempted attempt.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

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 selection of criminal facts;

2. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing).

3. Grounds for the suspended sentence under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the following grounds for sentencing have been repeated for a favorable reason):

1. Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and not more than six months but not more than 15 years;

2. Determination of sentence: In light of the fact that the crime of this case 2 years of suspended sentence for one year and six months is likely to cause damage to the life and property of others as the defendant committed an attempted crime in the telecom toilet and that the defendant would cause damage to another person's life and property, the crime of this case is not less complicated.

However, the records and arguments of this case, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, the defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case in a state of drunk, the fact that the crime of this case is committed in a state of drunk, the fact that the crime of this case is serious to the extent that 50,000 won has been destroyed and damaged, and the defendant prevented the expansion of damage by himself/herself (see Supreme Court Decision 97Do957, Jun. 13, 1997). However, the defendant does not have any specific criminal history except for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving).