[1] The time to commence and determine the commission of the crime of destroying existing buildings and fire through the media

[2] The case holding that even if the defendant did not move to the house itself which is the object of fire prevention due to external circumstances, it is reasonable to view that there was commencement of the crime of fire prevention of existing structures even if he did not move to the house itself which is the object of fire prevention

[1] In the case of a fire-fighting in the form of setting fire to the effect that a structure should be destroyed by an object of intermediateation, if the offender put a fire to the intermediate object or caused a fire to the intermediate object by the act of the offender, and thus the burning action can continue, it shall be deemed that there was the commencement of the crime of fire-fighting, even though the structure itself, which is the object, was not moved to the object, due to the reason that it was immediately extinguishing, etc., and whether there was commencement of the crime of fire-fighting in a specific case shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the defendant's intent or awareness at the time of the crime, method and attitude of the crime, the scene and surrounding circumstances of the crime, and the kind and nature of the object

[2] The case holding that even if the defendant did not move to the house itself which is the object of fire prevention due to external circumstances, it is reasonable to view that there was commencement of the crime of fire prevention of existing structures even if he did not move to the house itself which is the object of fire prevention, in the case where gasoline which is dusted with the intention of fire prevention has a strong influence of fire, fluences turned on the house and the victim's body with the knowledge of the fact that a large amount of it was scattered to the victim's body

[1] Articles 25 and 164 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 25 and 164 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Eastern Law Firm and one other

Busan High Court Decision 2001No452 delivered on November 15, 2001

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case

The Defendant was suffering from a serious mental conflict due to the problem of the support of the elderly who is suffering from old fry and the couple fighting, such as the frequent home fighting between the wife and the couple, and the omission of the eligibility for promotion of work recently, on September 20, 200, at the defendant's house located in the 418 Simsan-si, Masan-si, on September 20, 200, the Defendant took a serious action for the above reason, and 18-liters who were in the warehouse used plastic gasoline and 18-liters around the defendant's house with the wife and two children, and tried to kill the existing building by setting the gasoline, but the Defendant did not have attempted to take part in the wind that does not take part in the fry length, and caused the Defendant to live in the front 4 years and 5-day, and caused the Defendant to live in the front 10-day area.

2. The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged, and found the defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to view that the defendant's act was commenced with the fire prevention article by attaching fire to the existing building and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged of this case.

3. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below.

A. In the case of a fire-fighting in the form of setting fire to the effect that a structure is destroyed by an object of intermediateation, if the offender put a fire to the intermediate object or put a fire to the intermediate object caused by the act of the offender, and thus the burning action can continue, it shall be deemed that there was the commencement of the crime of fire-fighting, even though it did not have been moved to the object itself due to the circumstances such as the immediate extinguishment, etc., and whether there was the commencement of the crime of fire-fighting in a specific case shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s intent or awareness at the time of the crime, method and attitude of the crime, the scene and surrounding circumstances of the crime, and the kind and nature of the intermediate object.

B. However, according to the facts acknowledged by the court below in this case, the defendant, at the time of the crime of this case, spreads gasoline in front of the door of his boiler room and the outside toilet door before the crime of this case, and, at the time of the crime of this case, dumping gasoline to the body of the victim, who was neighboring residents, who committed these acts. In such a case, even though the place where gasoline was dusted is not an enclosed indoor space, it can be seen that there was a very high amount of gasoline dust around the defendant's house. Furthermore, according to the evidence that the court below rejected, the defendant, at the time of the crime of this case, was trying to dump the house under very interest, and it was hard to view that the defendant's act of spreading the victim's body with the victim's body by raising gasoline, and that the defendant's body did not have to dump the body of the victim's body at the time of the crime of this case.

C. Nevertheless, the court below's decision that it is difficult to see the defendant's act as commencement of fire prevention on the ground as seen above is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to commencement of fire prevention or misconception of facts against the rules of evidence in the crime of fire prevention, and it is clear that such illegality has influenced the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the prosecutor's ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)