beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles) recognized that the Defendant had at least the willful negligence of fire-fighting of the present building, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant directly expressed his intention to extinguish the house to the victim; (b) the Defendant attached the molds that are highly inflammable at a place close to the victim’s residence; and (c) the fact that the said molds are attached to the victim’s dwelling; and (d) the Defendant actually caused the residence of the victim, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged
Therefore, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.
2. Determination:
A. The Defendant, around April 11, 2016, found in the house of the victim D, who is the wife of the Defendant in the Chungcheongbuk-si, and brought about a dispute as a matter of home life. On the ground that the victim unilaterally avoided the place of occupation, the Defendant was able to look at the victim’s house.
At the time, the Defendant’s place of drinking in mind was located near the vinyl of the victim’s house, which was connected with the victim’s bedrooms, boilers, and the roof of the mast body, and as electric wires, etc. are complicatedly connected, there was a high probability that, if the Defendant’s place of drinking in mind is located, it would be possible to move the mast to the mast greenhouse through the pole or electric cable, etc., which would have been spread to the bedrooms, boiler rooms, etc.
Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around 04:16 on the same day, moved to the roof of a vinyl house by attaching a number of slids (the term "chills") used in cultivating scams in the vicinity of a vinyl house installed at the end of the victim's house. However, the Defendant attempted to suppress the scams by the police officers dispatched by the report of the victim who was reported on the scams through video call at the time.
In this respect, the defendant uses human habitation.