A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

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

1. On September 28, 2012, the present state building and fire reserve Defendant: (a) around 21:45, the “C Game site” operated by the victim B, which was located in Jeju-si; (b) the victim B, carrying a dog for the purpose of fire prevention, and purchased in advance with a dog for the purpose of fire prevention, 0.5 liter 0.5 litered the gasoline contained in three gasolines on the ground of the water bottled on the floor, with a view to the people who were located there.

Accordingly, the defendant prepared for the purpose of preventing a fire to a building in which people exist.

2. The Defendant violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the destruction and damage of a group, deadly weapon, etc.) at around 23:45 on the same day, and on the same ground, at the same place, destroyed by the brick, which is a dangerous object for the foregoing reason, the damage was caused by the glass of the seat of the Kater equivalent to KRW 1

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to D, E, and F;

1. Protocols of seizure and list of seizure of each police;

1. Application of related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant provisions of Articles 175 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts (the point of view, building at the time of sale), Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of view of causing damage to property at the time of sale);

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Suspension of execution under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act that has no particular criminal record, practical damage is not significant, and the fact that the error is pened in depth);

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act, the Defendant asserts to the effect that he was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder by drinking alcohol at the time of the instant case.

According to the records, the defendant can recognize a certain degree of drinking alcohol at the time of the instant case, but furthermore, it seems that the defendant has lost his ability to discern things or make decisions or has lost his ability to do so.