beta
(영문) 대전고등법원 2020.05.15 2020노31

현존건조물방화

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. On January 31, 2018, between around 00:35 and around 01:28, the Defendant: (a) operated the Defendant’s “CY 2” on the fourth floor of the ASEAN B building (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) operated the instant building by turning on the “D” restaurant located on the second floor of the instant building; (c) was in operation; and (d) was equipped with a wind line signboard entering the lighting at the entrance of the instant building; (b) was aware of the existence of a person on the instant building, the Defendant, despite being aware of the existence of the person on the instant building, destroyed the instant karaoke machine through a medium medium on the small wave of the said room No. 1; and (c) destroyed the said singing machine by setting it out by an ins

(hereinafter “instant fire”). Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed a building in which people exist by setting fire.

2. Where a fire occurs in a singing practice room, the accused may receive full compensation for losses from the relevant insurance company;

The Defendant claimed insurance money immediately after the occurrence of the instant fire, and the police officer in charge did not pay insurance money to the police officer in charge, thus demanding the conclusion of the instant fire.

C Kinging practice room was less imported compared to other King practice room (U) operated by the Defendant, and the Defendant laid King practice room as a substitute, but did not sell it.

The fire of this case is presumed to have occurred due to human factors. The defendant left the building of this case 19 minutes prior to the occurrence of the fire, and there was no person who left the building of this case from that time until the fire occurred.

The Defendant, referring to 40 mans on several occasions, designated him as a fire-fighting offender, but such man may not be identified in the images of the City Tybro (CCTV; hereinafter referred to as “CCTV”).

In full view of these circumstances, the Defendant could be deemed to have destroyed the instant building for the purpose of receiving insurance money.

Nevertheless, the lower court.