However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to be put on probation for two years.

At around 22:30 on March 3, 2017, the Defendant, while drunk in Gangnam-gu Seoul, posted a newspaper, etc. in his possession of about 40 candlelight mlelights (2m above 2m X length X 1m height x2m above) and posted it, and caused public danger by setting fire inside the candlelight mlelight mix and its inner length.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. E statements;

1. Investigation report (the currency of security guards who have discovered the site first);

1. Other closure photographs, personal effects photographs and field photographs at the time of committing a crime;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 167(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Probation;

Grounds for conviction under the proviso to Article 62-2 (1) and (2) of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the defendant's assertion

As candlelights were cut off by using the candlelights, the Defendant was trying to have the candlelights around the candlelights, and thus, there was no intention to prevent fire, and the candlelights were in favor of allelights, and there was no risk of spreading out from the surrounding buildings, such as the legal lelelights, and there was no risk of spreading outside.

2. Determination

A. “Public danger” under Article 167(1) of the Criminal Act, which prescribes a general crime of fire-fighting, refers to a specific risk that infringes on life, body, or property of an unspecified or large number of people, and whether such risk may result in an infringement according to the empirical rule based on specific circumstances ought to be objectively determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12947, Jan. 14, 2010).

B. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the following facts and circumstances are revealed.

1) The Defendant stated that it was difficult for the Defendant to put him in a candle flelight, such as the front door or the waterway newspaper site. However, the foregoing candle flelight box is a space where the believers dlelebs set up both banks, and the Defendant, on the day of committing the instant crime, was in possession of both banks at D’s autonomous sales stand at D’s entrance, so it does not seem that the Defendant asserted that he was a flebs, and that he did not act as above. Furthermore, the Defendant was working and residing in the restaurant located in the city of Yongsan from January 2017, but it was found every day from March 1, 2017 to D for three days without any special reason.

2) 이 사건 범행 일시에 촛불 공양함 근처에는 사람들이 없었지만, D는 늦은 밤에도 사찰을 개방하여 스님들은 물론 일반인들도 촛불 공양함 앞에 있는 미륵대불에 예불을 드리고 있다.

3) The Defendant’s fire-prevention flelelighted to the candlelight flelelight. The Defendant dlelighted to the candlelight flelelight, and the water dlelight dlelight dlelight dlelight dlelight dlelight dlelight dlelight dlelight dlelight.

C. In light of the situation before and after the crime of this case and the awareness and intention of the defendant, and the degree of fire by candlelights, it is reasonable to deem that there was a possibility that others could move to the goods from fire by the defendant's act of fire prevention. Thus, it can be sufficiently recognized that the specific risk of infringing on life, body, or property of an unspecified or large number of people has occurred.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) [Determination of Types]: Types Three (General Goods Fire Prevention); and

(b) Mitigation elements: Where actual damage is insignificant;

(c) [Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area: Imprisonment for six months to one year;

2. Determination of sentence;

The crime of this case is deemed as setting fire by inserting a newspaper, etc. in a candlelight in the urban temple that was designated as a tangible cultural property, and in light of the method of crime and risk, the crime and its nature are inferior. The Defendant did not take measures for recovery of damage up to now, and has the record of being sentenced to suspended execution for the same kind of crime.

However, the Defendant spreaded water to extinguish fire after the act of fire prevention, and the security guards who patroled there was no additional damage as a fire extinguishing machine early. In addition, taking account of the various circumstances revealed in the records and arguments, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing the crime, circumstances after committing the crime, etc., the Defendant shall determine the same type of punishment as the order within the recommended range in the sentencing guidelines, and suspend its execution, and order probation to prevent recidivism.

Judges Sung Jae-in

Judges' Index