A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On April 16, 2015, at around 19:10, the Defendant: (a) in the residence of the Defendant on the 1st floor of the Daegu Seo-gu C Housing; (b) in the event of gas explosion due to the concentration of neighboring housing, the said housing, despite being aware that gas explosion would have an impact on nearby housing, opened an intermediate valve connected to the steel product urban gas (LNG) pipe installed on the main wall, and opened a rubber pipe connected to gas gas (LNG) with a view to explosioning the said residence, and generated danger to human life, body, and property by cutting off the rubber pipe up to gas.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. On-site photographs (Nos. 3) of the case, and recording records of 119 reported (No. 6 of the same list);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (verification of gas emissions);

1. Article 172-2 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the relevant criminal facts;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (hereinafter “the grounds for discretionary mitigation”)

1. Six months to five years from the date of imprisonment with prison labor for a prison labor in law; and

2. Whether the sentencing criteria are applied: Offenses for which the sentencing criteria are not set; and

3. Determination of sentence: The crime of this case in six months of imprisonment is committed by the Defendant by extracting a large amount of gas source connected to gas gas while leaving an intermediate valve at his residence. This is a very dangerous act that may cause irrecoverable human damage to nearby residents when gas explosion leads to a large amount of gas, and the above crime is only imprisonment with prison labor, and the Defendant is currently under probation, so it is inevitable to sentence the Defendant as to the period of probation.

On the other hand, the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case by influenceing his wife while under the influence of alcohol, and was found to have committed the crime of this case in a timely fashion, and his mistake is divided, and the defendant himself is about 119.