현주건조물방화등
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. According to CCTV images installed around alley that entered the crime scene, immediately before the occurrence of a fire, the defendant entered the scene of a fire, and thereafter the person presumed to be the defendant attempted to prevent a fire into the scene of a fire. In addition, it is confirmed that the defendant returned to the scene of a fire and returned to the scene of a fire after the fire was cut out, the situation where the defendant returned to the scene of a fire, and the situation where the fire was completely discovered after the defendant returned to the scene of the fire, and as long as the person entering the scene of a fire was not discovered at the scene of a fire other than the defendant at the time of a fire, there is no possibility of fire by a third party, and the judgment of the court below acquitted the defendant, which affected the judgment,
2. Determination
A. According to the CCTV screen, etc. installed around the scene of the fire, the lower court determined that the Defendant was the Defendant, although there is a strong doubt that the Defendant did not commit the crime of fire-fighting in this case, ① the form of CCTV images appears to have been the Defendant at the time of the outbreak, but there was no image attached by the Defendant, but there was no image attached by the Defendant at the time of the outbreak, and it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant was the Defendant because the group was merely a part of the bridge attached to the above restaurant. ② The crime of fire-fighting in this case constitutes the so-called motive crime. ② The crime of fire-fighting in this case constitutes the so-called crime. There was no sufficient explanation about the motive for the Defendant to prevent the crime of fire-fighting in this case, and evidence was not submitted. ③ Although the possibility of the crime by the third party could not be ruled out with the place where the person resides, the possibility of the investigation by the CCTV images alone is insufficient to investigate the crime by the third party, etc., the indirect facts alone can be confirmed by the judge.