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 became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On January 16, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the government-wide CDa household house 301 around 20:00, at the home of the Defendant’s home, fighted with his wife and married couple, and took part in the urban gas valve connected to his gas bags; (b) caused danger to the life, body, or property of people living in the said multi-household house by cutting rubber string gas connected with urban gas, and releasing gas.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement of the witness D;

1. Photographs photographs of cut gas hographs;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (field status, etc.);

1. Article 172-2 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the conditions favorable to the following reasons for sentencing)

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: One year to ten years; and

2. Application of the sentencing criteria: A crime for which the sentencing criteria are not set;

3. Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution, the crime of this case committed by the Defendant with gas valves connected to gas bags as a result of marital fighting, cut urban gas by cutting urban gas valves connected to urban gas, thereby passing through urban gas. This is a very dangerous act not only the mother of the Defendant who was in the Defendant’s residence at the time of gas explosion, but also the neighboring residents, which could cause irrecoverable physical and property damage, and thus, the Defendant’s liability for the crime of this case is not easy in that it is a very dangerous act that may cause damage to the Defendant’s body or property.

However, the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and divided his mistake, that the defendant committed a contingent crime but appears not to have committed the crime of this case for the purpose of causing harm to others from the beginning, that the defendant suffered from urine disease for a long time, and that due to the merger certificate, the health condition is very good enough to the extent that the defendant should receive dysium every four hours every week.