현존건조물방화예비등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
Seized evidence Nos. 1 and 2 shall be confiscated.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)
A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to the crime of setting fire to existing structures), the Defendant found the victim to be frightened by the victim and attempted to spread gasoline to the victim’s living room floor, etc. in the process of physical fighting with the victim, and the victim did not want to spread to the victim’s house.
The victim also stated in the police for the same purpose.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which recognized the facts as stated in the facts charged, unlike the victim's statement, on the premise that there was a criminal intent and purpose to prevent existing buildings and fire, and found the defendant guilty of the preliminary action to prevent existing buildings, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.
2. Ex officio determination
A. The record of this case reveals the following facts.
(1) The original court served a copy of the indictment, a writ of summons, etc. by means of public notification and delivery pursuant to Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and sentenced one year to imprisonment with prison labor by proceeding the trial in the absence of
(2) On July 19, 2017, the Defendant was found to have failed to undergo a normal trial, such as having filed a request for recovery of his/her right to appeal against the lower judgment and having received notification of the date
The argument was asserted.
③ On September 21, 2017, the court recognized that the defendant was unable to file an appeal within the appeal period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and made a decision to recover his/her right of appeal (the early 2130).
B. According to the above facts, there are grounds for a request for retrial under the Special Act on the Protection of Special Cases as the defendant did not appear in the trial of the court below due to lack of reasons
Recognizing this Court, this Court has tried to proceed with a new litigation procedure.
In this respect, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.
Nevertheless, the defendant's mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.