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 three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

Around 00:50 on February 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) called, “I will throw away the apartment door without any justifiable reason,” and called, “I will throw away the door,” under the influence of alcohol at the Defendant’s residence located in Seoyang-gu C and 302 (D). Around 00:50, the Defendant failed to correct the apartment door and set the door on the Kapp by putting a fire on one’s lock with a single-use tool. However, the Defendant’s fire officers and police officers dispatched upon receiving the Defendant’s report, who failed to perform their intent by extinguishing a fire, and attempted to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of investigation reports (field photographs, etc.), and statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 174 of the relevant Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the multiple-choice Act;

2. Statutory mitigation under Articles 25 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act;

3. Article 62 (1) of the Suspension of Execution Criminal Act (Special Considerations in favor of the accused among the reasons for sentencing below).

4. As to the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion regarding probation, community service order, and lecture attendance order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Probation Act, the Defendant and their defense counsel asserted that the Defendant and their defense counsel had the ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking alcohol in the state of sporadism, explosive disorder, sustainable anxiety, etc. at the time of committing the instant crime, and taking them in a large number of times, and taking them into consideration in a state of sporadic sporasing

In light of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court, the defendant is deemed to have been under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case, while having diseases such as sporadic disorder and sporadic disorder, etc., but on the other hand, it is relatively detailed as to the circumstances leading to the crime of this case at the time when the police was investigated.