[1] The time when the crime of fire-fighting of the main building was committed

[2] The case holding that even if the body of the victim laid clothes, etc. above the victim's body and laid a tent of a tent with fire, and moved to the tent while carrying a sloping method, the fire was already completed for the purpose of the crime of fire-prevention of the sloping structure when moving to the tent, even if the sloping was turned to the tent

[1] Article 164 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 164 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 70Do330 decided Mar. 24, 1970 (No. 18-1, 61)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Doh-soo et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 2006No1133 delivered on November 24, 2006

The appeal shall be dismissed. One hundred-five days out of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

Examining the evidence adopted by the court below in light of the record, the court below is justified in finding that the defendant's statement stated in the first interrogation protocol prepared by the prosecutor is reliable, and that there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes due to Rape and Protection of Victims, etc. of Victims, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The crime of substantial building fire prevention can be done by the name of the object regardless of the object which is intermediate, or by which the object can burn itself.

In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, if the defendant, in the crime No. 2 of the judgment of the court below, laid down a tent with clothes, etc. on the victim's body and moved them to a astronomical government while carrying out a plan for the flasing of the flasing, even if the flasing fire did not reach the complete smoke, as long as the flasing fire was moved to a flasing government, the flasing building fire prevention has already been completed at the time of the flasing, so the judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error of law such as misconception

3. As to the third ground for appeal

Even if examining various circumstances that are conditions for sentencing based on the records, it is not recognized that there is a significant reason to recognize that the amount of the sentence imposed by the court below is extremely unfair.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)