A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for a period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On February 24, 2016, around 01:25, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the clothes, gas bags, and west gate, etc. with a fire reduction machine installed in the front line, which was installed in the front line, on the ground that there was a dispute with D, the husband, in the state of drinking alcohol No. 203 Dong 302, which is the Defendant’s residence; (b) on the ground that there was a fluoring with D, the Defendant, who is the husband, in the state of drinking alcohol, and that there was a fluoring with D, which is a gas house located in the kitchen or a gas house; and (c) caused the fire reduction machine installed in the front line.

As a result, the defendant tried to destroy a structure owned by the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, which was used as a residence by D, but did not achieve the intent, but did not 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 photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes concerning the lease contract (a copy) and written estimate;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of criminal facts;

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 (Article 55 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the sentencing guidelines shall not apply to a person who has not been applied on the grounds of the suspended sentence, since the reason for sentencing is not the same.

The crime of this case is nothing more than the attempted attempt of the defendant to get off his house, and if the length of the crime of this case has significantly spread, the defendant's responsibility cannot be deemed to be less than the defendant's responsibility in that it could cause serious damage to the lives and property of many people.

However, the defendant committed the crime of this case in a contingent manner, as a result of fire extinguishing by automatic fire extinguishing devices, and the fire did not spread in the building, and the serious damage did not occur, and the defendant was an apartment owner by finishing the main upper part of the bank, the living room board, and the living room with the charge.