A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

However, 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

On September 8, 2015, at around 22:10, the Defendant: (a) purchased in advance a dispute between the wife and D Apartment 109 Dong 1702, one of his house in Busan, and (b) reserved the Defendant and E and F for the purpose of using it as a residence or putting it into the existing building in front of the building at the entrance of the entrance of the entrance, and bringing it into the house with gasoline being kept at the entrance of the entrance of the entrance; and (c) putting it into the body of F, who is the son of the E, and her son, her hand away from the floor of the dwelling, and her son, who was called “the dead” and her son, and her f, acting as a son, with the intention of putting it into the existing building.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each statement of E and F preparation;

1. The police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Application of each police investigation reporting statute;

1. The sentencing criteria shall not apply to the crime of this case for the reason of sentencing in the main sentence of Article 175 and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the crime of this case.

Considering the fact that the place of the crime in this case is an apartment and there was a risk that a large number of people can cause a large amount of human life and property damage, and that the defendant, after being called by the police with the report of 112 after the crime in this case, talks about E to the effect that the police would bring about a problem, and is not good in the circumstances after the crime in this case, it is necessary to hold the defendant liable for strict liability corresponding thereto.

However, the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and his mistake is divided in depth, the drinking alcohol seems to have committed the crime of this case in a contingent manner, and there is no past record of criminal punishment or criminal punishment heavier than suspended execution for the same fire-prevention crime, and the victims seems to have been shotd by mutual consent with the victims.