logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.10.08 2015고합255
일반물건방화
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 7, 2015, around 02:40 on June 7, 2015, the Defendant stated that D prosecutor was “victim D” in the facts charged for the purport that the owner of the Ortoba in question is D, but as seen later, the owner of the Ortoba in this case is deemed not D but to be a non-resident.

Finding the installation of an off-to-face without a number plate on the passage of the above gasoline, and booming the Dong, but the above off-to-land of the city, which was taken after putting the above off the off-to-land of the city, caused public danger by setting fire to the above gasoline and allowing it to spread to the parking lot floor and the ceiling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police officer in relation to D, E, F, and G;

1. Seizure records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the report on the occurrence of a fire, internal investigation report, field identification report, CCTV-faging photographs, CCTV image data CDs, investigation report (Attachment to the stoobane photo);

1. Article 167 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 167 of the same Act concerning the applicable criminal facts;

1. Mitigation of discretionary mitigation under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration shall be made again for the reason of sentencing);

1. Social service order under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Although the main purport of the claim is to recognize the fact that the defendant destroyed the erroneous land of this case where D was accompanied, since the owner of the above erroneous land is not the owner or can be seen as owned by the defendant, the crime of fire prevention of general goods under his own jurisdiction shall be applied.

2. Determination

A. It is acknowledged by the evidence examined earlier, prior to the ownership of the Defendant of the Oral Ba in this case.

arrow