(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.02.05 2015노2271 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.02.05 2015노2271

현주건조물방화등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the facts charged in the instant case by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as seen below.

1) In the case of the main building fire-prevention which caused the occurrence of the instant fire, it cannot be readily concluded that the fire was caused by the fire, even based on the factual inquiry reply, response, etc. by the head of the Incheon Southern-dong Fire Station. In the case of the general building fire-prevention, since there was no investigation into the cause of the fire or on-site identification, it cannot be readily concluded that the

2) On March 4, 2014, the specific grounds for appeal against each fire are as follows. (1) This part of the fire appears to be “fire extinguishing at a height of 2.5 meters” in the fire site investigation report. Thus, there is no possibility that the defendant, only a stale, who was passing the path, placed a fire.

(2) Two or more persons who appeared in CCTV images cannot be ruled out the possibility of being a criminal offender of the fire prevention of this case, and the defendant may also be excluded from the criminal.

B) According to CCTV images taken from AS on November 26, 2014, the Defendant is recognized to have been located in the front of the AS from 21:47:54 to 21:48:05. Thus, the instant fire prevention presumed to have occurred in around 21:50 cannot be said to have committed the Defendant.

(2) The person who was taken CCTV into the instant building is not the defendant.

(3) In order to confirm the scene of the crime, the Defendant did not go to the scene of the crime of this case, but did not go to the place around the scene of the crime of this case, but did so, and the place where the occurrence of this case occurred is the place where there is a lot of dynamic population, and the owner of the building that waste timber, etc. was loaded therein was not perceived, so it is difficult for the Defendant to have committed the crime of this case.

C) The Defendant’s fire prevention of Qua building general goods (1) is the old soil.

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2018.10.10 2018노174

-서울고등법원 2018.10.24 2018노1667

-부산고등법원 2018.02.07 2017노415

-서울고등법원 2018.10.25 2018노1623

-광주고등법원 (제주) 2016.07.20 2016노50