1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months;

2.Provided, That the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

Punishment of the crime

From March 2016, the Defendant is a person who resides with the wife E and his children at the home owned by the Defendant’s mother D in Macheon-si.

On September 1, 2016, at around 02:00, the Defendant listened to the horses that he had difficulty in her own situation from the preceding D in the above residence, and discussed countermeasures by drinking and drinking E and drinking, and then came out of his family, and then came out of his prison and room, etc. with the aim of having his wife and his children live in the Pyeongtaek boiler room.

Accordingly, the defendant was prepared for the purpose of destroying the residence by fire.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement to F and E;

1. A report on investigation;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Articles 175 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. The crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution is an unfavorable circumstance against the Defendant, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant committed the crime of this case on the grounds of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act: (b) the Defendant, at the mother’s mother’s house, told the Defendant that his house would be frightened from her mother’s house; and (c) took a dispute with her wife and frightened with his wife while she was frightened with the aim of bringing about drinking water and causing a fire; and (d) in light of the circumstances leading up to the crime; (c)

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant recognized all of the crimes of this case and is in depth and reflects on the depth of the defendant, the fact that the defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case in a somewhat contingent and contingent manner in his answer while failing to prepare a solution at the end of the mother that the defendant's house is unfolding, that the crime was committed in preparation, and that substantial damage was not incurred, and that the wife and father of the defendant wanted again to commit the defendant's wife.