(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.1. 선고 2018고합628 판결

On August 18, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment with prison labor for an injury at the Seoul Central District Court on August 18, 2016 and completed the execution of the said sentence in the Ansan Prison on February 4, 2017.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant committed each of the following crimes under the state that he/she lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to excessive drinking, on-site illness, and on-the-counter disorder:

1. To prevent general buildings and fire;

(a) Crimes committed on June 10, 2018:42;

On June 10, 2018, at around 23:42, the Defendant entered a Dobong Factory Building of D Operation in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and sent a bruma bruma on the first floor using a stringer who was in possession of a breath without any justifiable reason under the influence of alcohol, and destroyed the said building by attaching a fire to the wall surface of the third floor, the 3rd floor in the 3rd floor in the 3rd floor, the ceiling, and the ceiling.

(b) Crimes committed on June 11, 2018: 01:10

On June 11, 2018, at around 01:10, the Defendant: (a) entered a building managed by G in Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul, and, under the influence of alcohol, destroyed the said building by setting fire to the wall surface and stairs of the first floor underground in the stairs that G was in a H restaurant of the first floor operated by G without any reason; and (b) by attaching a fire to the wall of the first floor and the stairs in a fluor, the fluor of which was in a fluor, without any reason.

2. Crimes committed on June 11, 2018,000 for ordinary car and fire prevention;

On June 11, 2018, at around 00:08, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, opened a studio that was parked in the parking lot in front of the I building in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, without any justifiable reason, sent a studio to a stude that was in his possession, attached a string to a string that was in his possession, and moved to a child’s clothes, cosmetics, etc. in his string. On the other hand, the Defendant continued to attach a studio to a string that was in his front of the I building, and put it into a string door that was not corrected and then moved to a radio inside the string, etc., and destroyed a total amount of KRW 57,608,900 in the market value, such as the repair cost of the string vehicle.

(b) Crimes committed on June 11, 2018: around 01:15;

On June 11, 2018, at around 01:15, the Defendant discovered NObane in MM operation, which was parked in a alley in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan City L, and brought about strike and paper stuffs in the vicinity without any justifiable reason under the influence of alcohol, and destroyed the above Oba in an amount equivalent to KRW 2,130,000 at the market price by attaching a fire to the whole fabababa, which was in possession of the lower part of the fababab, and was in possession of the lower part of the fababab.

3. Fire prevention of general goods;

(a) Crimes around 00:30 on June 11, 2018;

At around 00:30 on June 11, 2018, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol, destroyed the wire ropes and their nets that were parked in the P hotel parking lot located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, without any justifiable reason, by cutting off the wire ropes and their nets on the side of the vehicle, and setting off the wire ropes and their nets in an amount equivalent to KRW 30,000 in the market value, and caused public danger that could be moved to the vehicles and the neighboring areas of the non-breadth, wooden stairs, walls, etc.

B. The crime of June 11, 2018, 01:05

On June 11, 2018, at around 01, 01:05, the Defendant discovered a sloping machine, fingerle, wave, etc. in U commercial space in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, and, under the influence of alcohol, destroyed a sloping flag and a sloping flag equivalent to KRW 130,000 of the market price and a sloping car in the amount of KRW 50,000 of the market price with a sloping, and caused public danger that could be moved to the above commercial building and other commercial buildings in neighboring areas.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. Each police statement of J and M;

1. Each statement of V, D, Q, T and G;

1. A report on occurrence (vehicle fire), a seizure report, a report on internal investigation (verification of CCTV in a parking lot parked in K), a report on the occurrence of CCTV in the parking lot, a report on the occurrence of CCTV, a report on internal investigation (on-site rent and fire prevention), a report on investigation (T telephone statement), a report on investigation (G telephone statement), and a report on investigation (D telephone statement);

1. Receipts and written estimates; and

1. Blokbbox photographs, seized photographs, each CCTV image, and on-site photographs;

1. Previous records: Criminal history records and other inquiry reports and investigation reports;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 166(1) of the Criminal Code(the point of the general building, fire prevention and fire prevention) and Article 167(1) of the Criminal Code(the point of the general fire prevention)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act (Provided, That with respect to each general building and fire prevention and each general motor vehicle, the limitation under proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act)

1. Mitigation of mental illness;

Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act / [1] Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act / From 2012 to 2012, the Defendant was mentally and physically treated with alcohol use disorder, tidal disease, and stimulative disorder. The Defendant had a lot of records of suicide attempted and self-harm on several occasions while drinking a large amount of alcoholic beverages. ② The Defendant continued to drink a large number of alcoholic beverages from the day immediately before the time of committing the instant crime at a restaurant around 20:0 on June 10, 2018, immediately before the crime was committed, and it appears that the Defendant had the ability to drink two soldiers during the commission of the crime (Evidence No. 75,86, 290, 292 of the evidence record). ③ The Defendant, who was an investigative agency, was unable to use alcohol on economic grounds and make a decision with a weak mind, and the Defendant did not have any excessive mind to commit the instant crime.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment provided for in general motor vehicle fire-prevention around 00:08 on June 11, 2018)

[Attachment 1. The reasons for sentencing 1. The defendant sought confiscation of Raz. (No. 4) seized by the prosecutor, but the defendant is not a Raz. used in the police or the prosecutor's office when the Raz. (No. 172,290,294 of the evidence records). The Raz. used in the crime is a raz., so it is sob that it cannot be seen that the above Raz. (No. 172,290,294 of the evidence records) merely based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor constitutes an article provided for the crime of this case.). The scope of the applicable sentences under the law: Imprisonment with labor for a year to June 37.

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Crimes of general buildings and fire prevention, and general motor vehicles and fire prevention, respectively, around June 10, 2018;

[Determination of type] General Criteria for Type 2 (Setting fire to other buildings, etc.)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months to 3 years (Basic Area)

(b) A crime of arsoning a general building on June 11, 2018: around 01:10;

[Determination of type] General Criteria for Type 2 (Setting fire to other buildings, etc.)

[Special Sentencing] Where actual damage is minor;

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment from one year to two years (Mitigation). Each general crime of fire-prevention is committed.

[Determination of Types] General Criteria for Type 3 (Setting Fire to General Goods)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 10 months to 2 years (Basic Area)

(d) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple crimes: one year and six months from June to five years (the lower limit of the basic crime shall be followed by one year and six months, and the upper limit shall be three years, which is the upper limit of the scope of sentence among other crimes, plus one-third of the upper limit of the upper limit of the scope of sentence among other crimes, one year and six months from June to the second year, which is the highest limit of the scope of sentence among other crimes);

3. Determination of sentence;

피고인은 이미 2011. 9. 8. 현주건조물방화죄로 징역 1년을 선고받은 동종 전과가 있고, 2016. 8. 18. 상해죄로 징역 8월을 선고받아 누범 기간에 있음에도 불구하고, 다시 별다른 이유 없이 하룻밤 사이에 서로 다른 곳에서 여섯 차례나 방화하는 이 사건 범행을 저질렀다. 피고인은 각 범행 직후 아무런 진화 조치나 화재 신고 없이 범행 현장을 떠나 더 큰 화재로 확대될 위험이 있었고, 피고인이 불을 지른 곳이 상가가 밀집되어 있는 장소이므로 자칫 대규모 인명 또는 재산 피해가 발생할 수 있었다 할 것이어서 그 죄질이 매우 나쁘다. 현재까지 소훼한 건물, 자동차, 물건의 소유자들에게 피해회복을 위한 조치가 전혀 이루어지지 않았다. 이러한 정상들을 고려하면 피고인에게는 그 죄책에 상응하는 엄한 처벌이 필요하다.

However, the Defendant is both aware of and reflect on the instant crime. The Defendant was unable to receive an appropriate care from his parents at the time of drinking, and was unable to lead a normal social life, such as working in a long-term old-age life even after having become an adult. In addition to these obstacles to alcohol use, the Defendant was unable to receive appropriate treatment due to economic and social circumstances, even if there was a mental disorder caused by a stimulative and bipolarly dynamic disorder. Such circumstances are considered favorable to the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstances of the crime of this case, and various conditions of sentencing as shown in the pleadings of this case shall be comprehensively considered.

Judges

The presiding judge, judge Kim Jong-tae

Judges Park Jae-ran

Judges Chief Democratic

Note tin

1) Based on facts acknowledged by the argument and records of the instant case, the facts charged to the extent that the Defendant’s defense right is not infringed.

Some revisions are recognized.

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.01 2018고합628

-서울북부지방법원 2020.01.31 2019고합423

-대전지방법원 2015.09.25 2015고단1565

-서울남부지방법원 2017.09.08 2016고합577

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2013.04.09 2013고단225