A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except 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

The defendant is a relationship with B.

피고인은 2019. 9. 25. 23:45경 대구 달서구 C에 있는 피고인의 창고에서 B이 술을 마시고 욕설을 하며 잔소리를 하자 화가 나, “같이 죽자”라고 말한 후 그곳 방 바닥에 있던 이불 3개와 베개 2개 등을 방 앞의 창고 바닥으로 옮기고, 탁자 위에 있던 1회용 라이터로 위 이불 등에 불을 놓아 창고를 소훼하려고 하였으나, 그 불길이 이불과 베게에 번지자 깜짝 놀라 창고의 벽면, 천장에 불이 옮겨 붙기 전에 발로 밟아 불을 끄는 바람에 그 뜻을 이루지 못하였다.

Thus, the defendant was trying to fire the existing building B by setting fire to and from the fire.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the choice of punishment;

1. Article 25 (2) and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for mitigation of attempted crimes;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (the grounds for sentencing that are advantageous to the following)

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for nine months to seven years; and

2. Sentencing Criteria: The sentencing criteria shall not apply to an attempted offender; and

3. Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution, the defendant tried to extinguish the fire to a building together with B;

Fire prevention of a building in which people exist is a highly dangerous crime that may cause serious damage to human life, body, and property.

Considering the above circumstances, the Defendant’s liability is not against the law.

The defendant's recognition of the crime of this case is against the defendant, and in the situation of dispute with B, it seems to have caused the crime of this case by contingency, and the defendant's non-existence is excessive.