Judgment

The prosecutor, applying Articles 170(1) and 166(1) of the Criminal Act to the facts charged of this case, brought a public prosecution for the crime of de factoization.

The object of the crime of realization under Articles 170(1) and 166(1) of the Criminal Act is a structure, train, electric car, automobile, vessel, aircraft, or mine which belongs to another person's ownership. In this case, the issue is whether the above C 301, a structure owned by another person, can be seen as a fire.

The crime of fire prevention is effective when the crime of fire prevention has been committed in a state of burning by itself, leaving the media (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Do330, Mar. 24, 1970). This legal doctrine also applies to the crime of fire extinguishment.

However, according to the actual situation survey report and the fire site survey report submitted by the prosecutor, it is apparent that the above 301 was not attached to the second 301, but the remote area of 301 was only sleep and there is no trace of the transfer.

위 여관 주인인 D도 ‘바가지로 물을 떠 이불에 부었으나 불이 꺼지지 않아 요와 이불을 들어 화장실로 옮긴 다음 불을 껐다’는 취지로 진술하고 있을 뿐 벽지에도 불이 붙어 있었다는 진술을 하지 않는다.

A structure, which is the object of the crime of fire prevention under the Criminal Code, means a structure built on the land and composed of walls, columns, and roofs or tents, which can be removed or entered by people inside.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do3950 Decided December 12, 2013). Accordingly, the foregoing 301 is the object of the crime of de factoization.