beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.08.18 2016노1247

현주건조물방화등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination [Unfavorable Circumstances] In the case of crimes of the crimes of the fire prevention of the present building of this case, the crimes of attempted fire prevention of the present building of this case, three times per year for ten days, and in the case of a fire, there is a very high risk of human life damage due to its characteristics;

The nature of the crime is very rough and poor, which was committed by setting fire to the guest room of the telecom and the place of the gathering and the place of the gathering.

In light of the fact that the act of larceny, fraud, and violation of the Act on Financial Business Specializing in the thiefing, fraud, and credit, and the defendant has already been sentenced to suspension of indictment on the crime of larceny and credit-based financial business, the nature of the crime is not easy.

The Defendant was under confinement for each of the crimes of this case and was subject to a disposition of 20 days of fine for violation of discipline, such as speculative acts, etc.

[ favorable circumstances] There was no loss of human life due to the crime of attempted fire prevention of the present building of this case, and attempted fire prevention of the present building of this case.

The victims who suffered property damage due to the crime of attempted fire prevention of the current owner's building and the present owner's structure and attempted crime of larceny of this case and the victims of the theft of this case are punished by the defendant.

There is no history of criminal punishment for the defendant.

The defendant shows an attitude against the confession of each of the crimes in this case.

On July 29, 2016, the father of the defendant who sought the Defendant’s wife by concluding an agreement with the victims on behalf of the defendant, submitting a written application, etc., died on July 29, 2016. The mother of the defendant, the defendant, and the defendant are the bereaved family members, and the mother of the defendant has no economic ability, making it difficult for the defendant’s family

otherwise, the age of the defendant;