Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.

On May 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) disposed of waste in front of the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan apartment commercial building; and (b) caused public danger by burning the waste trees, etc. around the said chemical group on the ground that the said chemical group is not properly managed; (c) as well as by cutting down trees and grass around the said chemical group on the ground that the chemical group is not properly managed; and (d) despite the parking of automobiles on the side, the Defendant collected waste trees and waste, etc., which are non-owned objects in the surrounding area, and caused public danger by burning the waste trees, etc. by attaching them as a disposable stop.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to seizure records, seizure lists, photographs, investigation reports (investigation, such as the measurement of the distance between the point of launch and parking cars);

1. Article 167 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and the choice of punishment. Article 167 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act to be confiscated;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts that there was no public danger due to the defendant's act.

According to the above evidence, it can be acknowledged that a motor vehicle was parked at a place less than 2.5 to 2.7 meters away from the launching point, and that the police officer who received a report and arrived at the site attempted to extinguishing the motor vehicle as a firefighting machine, but continued to spread the fire as a extinguishing machine, and that the fire extinguishing has been completed by the motor vehicle called after the dispatch.

In light of the above facts, if it appears that there was sufficient possibility to move a parked vehicle in the vicinity of the above non-breadth, and if the ordinary businessman has made sufficient conditions to cause the danger of burning, it shall be deemed that the public danger has occurred, and it is reasonable to deem that specific public danger has occurred due to the crime of this case.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.