In the case of burning a structure under Article 164 of the Criminal Act due to fire-prevention acts under Article 167 of the same Act and existence of fire-prevention awareness to the structure.

Even if the purpose of ignitioning a stolen object into the container is to destroy evidence, if a building is burned by easily burning a building using petroleum with strong human capacity, the intention to extinguish the building can be recognized.

Defendant

The final appeal is dismissed.

Defendant’s appeal of taking advantage of the aforementioned facts charged on November 20, 4286: (a) the Defendant’s counsel stolen cash 7,000 currency owned by Nonindicted Party 2 in Jeju-Eup (detailed address omitted) around 1:50 minutes in the first place, and (b) the Defendant destroyed the evidence of the crime of war at around 2:00 p.m., and (c) injected about 5 petroleum in the same column and destroyed the same amount, and then, (d) injected about 1 joints of oil in the human body, and fire from the human body, and (e) injected about 5,000 square meters in the wall of Nonindicted Party 1, such as the bedclothes with 8,000 erosion of the wall of Nonindicted Party 1, the lower court determined that it was a fire prevention crime, and applied the former part of Article 164 of the Criminal Act to the structure that was destroyed by fire, despite the fact that the Defendant destroyed the fire, the lower court determined that the fire was not applied to the building that was destroyed by fire for the sole purpose of the fire prevention.

However, considering the contents of evidence cited in the original judgment, it is hard to see that the defendant, at the trial of the original court, stated the fact that the number of 1:20 p.m. machines around November 20, 4286 was 1:0 p.m., at the trial of the original court, 7,000 p.m. cash 2 owned by the non-indicted 1 inside the non-indicted 1 inside the non-indicted 1 inside the same time after 2:0 p.m., in order to cut off and destroy the evidence, and as a result, injecting about 1 joint oil in the non-indicted 1 inside the same room, it is hard to see that the defendant's main method of destruction of evidence such as 8,000 p.m., and 5,00 p.m., 5,000 erosion of the wall inside the same room and 1:0 p.m., it is hard to see that the defendant's method of destruction of evidence belongs to the non-indicted 1's wall to burning and 2's wall.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice) Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Justice)