A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

Punishment of the crime

On October 8, 2015, the Defendant: (a) was in dispute with the Defendant’s wife D at the office of the Defendant located in Ansan-si, Ansan-si, Ansan-si; and (b) was trying to store clothes located in the house of the Defendant with the Defendant’s wife D on the floor of the living room; and (c) tried to store the existing building by putting them away from the house of the Defendant’s seat with the Defendant’s wife, but she was in an attempted attempt by setting fire to the house of the Defendant’s seat.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Police seizure records and list of seizure;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 174 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for a limited term;

1. Statutory mitigation under Articles 26 and 55 (1) 3 (Attempted Suspension) of the Criminal Act;

1. 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)

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. An order to attend a course under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for nine months to seven years; and

2. Sentencing is not applicable because the sentencing sentencing is not determined.

The crime of this case is nothing more than the attempted attempt of the defendant to get off his house, and if the length of the crime of this case has significantly spread, the defendant's responsibility cannot be deemed to be less than the defendant's responsibility in that it could cause serious damage to the lives and property of many people.

However, there are also favorable circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime in a contingent way, that the Defendant did not have a fire on his own building immediately after the commission of the instant crime, that there was no serious damage, that the Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime and reflects his mistake in depth, that the Defendant was punished as the same crime, or that there was no history of punishment heavier than the fine for other crimes.

In full view of the above various circumstances, the punishment as ordered is imposed.