1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months;

2. Provided, That the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

Punishment of the crime

피고인은 2015. 7. 26. 02:30경 광명시 B에 있는 ‘●●●●’ 노래방 앞길에서, 전신주와 가로수 사이에 줄을 연결하여 설치된 ‘오수관로 매설공사구간 내 주정차 금지 안내’ 현수막에 소지하고 있던 라이터로 불을 붙여, 그 불이 위 현수막에 번지게 하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant destroyed another person's property by setting fire, thereby causing public danger.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

2. C’s statement;

3. Application of each statute of photograph;

1. Article 167 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

2. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

3. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

4. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the Probation Order.

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than six months nor more than five years;

2. Scope of the recommended sentencing criteria; and

(a) Determinations of types: Fire-Fighting Crime Group - General Criteria - Type 3 (General Goods Fire-Fighting);

(b) Special penal persons: In cases where actual damage is minor, no penalty shall be imposed;

(c) Scope of recommending punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for three months to one year (the lowest limit of the scope of punishment (six months) shall be mitigated by 1/2 as it falls under the cases where at least two persons exist in the area of mitigation and special mitigation);

(d) Scope of recommended sentences revised according to the range of applicable sentences: Six months to one year (based on the lowest limit of sentencing range of applicable sentences); and

3. In this case, the decision of sentence shall be that the defendant firees a banner installed on the part of the flag's delivery at one night, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good.

If abrupted, it seems that there is a risk that much damage would have occurred as much as possible to the street trees or telegraphic cable.

In light of these points, the responsibility of the defendant cannot be somewhat applied to the defendant.

However, it is minor that the defendant committed the crime of this case in a contingent manner under the influence of alcohol as a person who was diagnosed with mental retardation disorder, the confession of his crime, and the degree of damage is minor and the degree of damage is minor.