beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2014.04.18 2014고합69

현주건조물방화

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 25, 2014, at around 02:00, the Defendant: (a) 202 of the Dda-household Building Dda-gu, Ansan-si, the wife of the Defendant, and (b) Dao-gu, Ansan-si, and (c) Dao-gu, the Defendant: (a) Dao-gu; (b) Dao-gu, the head of the house; (c) Dao-gu, the head of the household; (d) Dao-gu, the head of the household; (d) Ma-si, the head of the household; (d) Ma-gu, the head of the household, and the head of the Si/Gun/Gu, Ma-si, Ma-si, was

Accordingly, the defendant set fire to the defendant's family members so that approximately KRW 5,751,00 of the repair cost would be used as a dwelling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

2. Each police statement of C and E;

3. A report on the results of field inspections.

4. Written estimate.

5. Application of each statute of photograph;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, and Article 164 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

2. Reasons for sentencing under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for one year and six months to fifteen years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Determination of types: Fire-Prevention crime group - Type 1 of general standards (Setting fire to present main buildings, etc.);

(b) A special breeder: No person;

(c) Scope of recommendations: Imprisonment for two to five years (basic areas); and

3. The crime of this case by the sentence was committed on the ground that the defendant was suffering from a dispute with his wife, and the wife was located in his house leased and her house. The crime of this case was committed on the ground that the crime of this case was committed on the ground that the defendant did not take the responsibility for the crime, and thus, the defendant's liability cannot be deemed to be excessive, in light of the fact that the crime of this case was committed on the ground that a large number of people was spread to the entire multi-household dwelling living in the country, and that there was a high risk of causing property damage as well as human life damage.