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

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 23, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 17:25, around 2013, at the office of “E” for the operation of D’s 3-dong C’s apartment factory (the Defendant’s friendly type); (b) did not pay KRW 2,00,00 of the price for the Hdrae’s portion supplied by the Defendant; (c) did not look at the above office; (d) did so; (d) fluord the plor with the plor with the plor in which the plor was 2 liter; and (e) did not put the plor on the plos; and (e) attempted to put the plos on the plos; (e) did not put the son’s son on the plos.

Accordingly, the defendant prepared fire prevention for the purpose of setting fire to and burns a building in which people exist.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

2. Statement made by the police against D;

3. Police seizure records;

4. Requests for appraisal; and

5. Application of each statute of photograph;

1. Articles 175 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

2. Grounds for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to five years; and

2. The sentencing criteria are not set for the crimes of this case for which the sentencing criteria are not set.

In this case, the defendant spreads the width to the apartment-type factory office operated by the apartment-type D, and puts the width into a rater to prevent fire, and it is not good to commit a crime and commit a crime.

If he did not restrain the defendant, he did not leave the defendant, and if the defendant moved to a width, he would have been likely to cause severe damage by not only the above office but also other offices or factories concentrated on apartment-type factories.

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

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case in a dynamic manner due to the payment of the price of delivered goods between friendly departments.