A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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 July 1, 2017, around 3:20, the Defendant, within the extent of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 102, one’s own residence, her husband C, 102, her husband D, brought a fire on the floor of the living room, saying, “I would die and spread,” she would have been able to prevent a fire at the dwelling due to a sudden dispute with her husband D.

Thus, although the defendant tried to extinguish a building used and existing as a residence by setting fire to the defendant, the defendant did not go through the wind that the children of the defendant who was living in the dwelling and did not go to commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. On-site photograph Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion

1. The defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged the facts of the crime of this case, but did not have the intent to prevent the entire residence. Thus, the defendant asserts to the purport that the crime of this case constitutes the crime of fire-prevention of general goods, not the crime of fire-prevention of the present main structure.

2. Determination

(a) In the case of a fire-fighting in the form of a crime of extinguishing a structure through an object of intermediateation, if the offender puts a fire on the intermediate object or puts a fire on the intermediate object due to the act of the offender, thereby continuing the burning process, it was impossible to replace the structure itself, which is the object, due to such circumstances as immediately extinguishing it, etc.;

Even if there was a commencement of the crime of fire prevention.

It should be seen (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6641, Mar. 26, 2002). (b) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court under the above legal doctrine, namely, the fact that the children of the defendant were present in addition to the defendant's dwelling at the time, and ② the fact that the defendant was not present in this case, which is a intermediary, may be expanded around the case.