A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, 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

At around 23:50 on January 26, 2013, the Defendant, at a fee parking lot on the front of the D-road located in the city of 10:50 on the 26th day of 2013, had been dissatisfied with the gathering of garbage on the roadside trees located adjacent to the street trees in the city of Pyeongtaek E-si, and had the above place attached to the garbage container.

The Defendant: (a) collected three balls containing garbage, such as fronts, name boxes, and powder bars on the rear side of Fsch Rexton vehicles, and installed three balls, balls, paper cups, and suspension on the rear side of the vehicle; (b) attached a fire to one-time motor vehicle in advance, and caused public danger, such as making the vehicle back in part by contact with the Fexton motor vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant destroyed the object by setting fire, thereby causing public danger.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to H and F;

1. Seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, field conditions photographs;

1. Article 167 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

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. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing);

1. The main sentence of Article 62-2 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act on Probation;

1. The crime of this case for the reason of sentencing under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Confiscation Criminal Code is a crime of causing public danger by attaching a fire to the garbage fluor, and such crime of fire prevention is a crime of causing serious social harm to the lives and property of the people who were suffering from a large fire. In fact, even in the case of this case, the defendant was placed in the vicinity where the fire was fluor, and there was a risk of considerable damage if the fire was parked at the location where the fire was parked, and thus, the defendant's liability for the crime of this case is heavy, in light of the fact that there was a risk of causing considerable damage if the fire was not fluord early.

However, the defendant.