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

The defendant is living together with the victim D in Socheon-gu C building 204.

On November 25, 2015, the Defendant, while making a dispute with the victim who was drinking together at the above house around 23:50 on November 25, 2015, asked the victim to raise an objection.

“The Defendant was in possession of” and “the Defendant

1) On the one hand, a person was trying to fire a brine in which a person exists by setting a brine on the inside, but the brine did not bring a fire to the brine, but did not commit an attempted brine of the water by reporting the brine to the effect that the fire was laid to the brine.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Application of statutes on field 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. Mitigation of attempted punishment: Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances shall be considered among the reasons for sentencing).

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following consideration shall be made repeatedly for the reasons for sentencing);

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act of the community service order;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to seven months from September to June;

2. Scope of recommended sentences on the sentencing criteria: The fact that the sentencing criteria are not applicable.

3. Determination of sentence: The crime of this case with a stay of ten months in prison is a case where the defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, has committed a dispute with a woman living together with him/her with him/her, and the crime of this case has been put to a rab on the same ground that he/she was in his/her inner state.

However, there is little possibility of criticism in that it could cause enormous damage to human life and property due to a large fire as soon as the fire has been destroyed immediately, but there is little possibility of criticism.

However, immediately after committing the crime, the Defendant prevented the occurrence of additional damage, recognized all of the crimes, and divided the mistake in depth, in addition to the fire that was destroyed in an amount equivalent to KRW 160,000 in the market price.