현존건조물방화예비등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant: The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Public prosecutor: In light of the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (not guilty portion in the judgment of the original court: the fact that the existing structure and fire prevention reserve) of the instant vehicle, the vice-president of the instant vehicle is the three vice-presidents of vehicle luminousting, etc., where considerable quantity of inflammable substances is located. According to G and I’s statements, the Defendant purchased 8 liters and then cut off the gasoline. According to G and I’s statements, the Defendant was unable to smoke in the first floor office. Thus, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of protecting the existing structure and fire reserve against the Defendant, even if the Defendant is recognized as the purpose of preventing the fire.
2. Determination
A. A. An ex officio determination prosecutor shall maintain the facts charged as to the preparation of the existing structure and fire-prevention, which the court below acquitted, as the primary facts charged, and applied for the amendment of the indictment to add the facts charged for special intimidation as stated in paragraph (1) below [the reasons for the judgment in writing], and this court permitted it.
However, as seen below, inasmuch as this court found the Defendant not guilty of the primary charges and found the Defendant guilty of the charges added in preliminary charges, the Special Intimidation, which is found the Defendant guilty, and the remaining crimes of the Defendant, should be sentenced to a single punishment in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the primary facts is still subject to the judgment of this court.
B. The primary Defendant of the first instance judgment on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine is from October 2018.