[1] Requirements for the establishment of an attempted suspension

[2] Whether a person can be deemed to have attempted stop in a case where a person embages a impreging of a fire after fire and embages the fire (negative)

[1] In a case where an act of commission of a crime commences and the act of commission of a crime is suspended at one’s own free will before the crime is completed, if the suspension is not due to circumstances that obstruct the completion of the crime under ordinary social norms, it constitutes an attempted suspension.

[2] In a case where the defendant tried to set fire to the clothes located in a balpum, but reported that the imprising of the falth is hot, and then laid the water, it shall be deemed that the act of playing in the way that the imprising can be made, doing harm to his body safety, or fear of fear of committing a crime constitutes an act that obstructs the completion of the crime under general social norms. Thus, it shall not be deemed as an attempted suspension by the defendant.

[1] Article 26 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 26 of the Criminal Code, Article 164 (1), and Article 174 of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Do2002 delivered on November 12, 1985 (Gong1986, 91) Supreme Court Decision 92Do917 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2696) Supreme Court Decision 93Do1851 delivered on October 12, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 3129)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-young

Busan High Court Decision 97No189 delivered on April 3, 1997

The final appeal is dismissed. 45 days out of detention days after the final appeal shall be included in imprisonment with prison labor in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the public defender are examined together.

1. Examining the evidence legitimately examined and adopted by the court of first instance by the records, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of each crime in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant, and that the defendant was not in a state of mental disorder due to drinking and liverment at the time of the crime in this case is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of legal principles as to mental and physical disorder, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, and in this case where a sentence of less than 10 years is imposed, the decision of unfair sentencing cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. The argument in the grounds of appeal that the defendant placed clothes in the labbing place at the time of the crime of the present main building or the attempted crime of fire prevention of this case, but that the defendant's attempt to stop in the labing place was not immediately extinguishing and that it constitutes an attempted crime of suspension, which is a requisite cause of reduction or exemption of punishment, cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal against the judgment below, as it did not appear at the court below. Further, as the ground of appeal is examined ex officio, there is no evidence suggesting that the defendant's attempt to commit the crime was extinguishing after his own act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. In the event the defendant started the crime of this case and suspended the act of crime with his own free will before the crime is completed, it constitutes an attempted crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Do2002, Nov. 12, 1985; 85Do1851, Oct. 12, 1993; 2000Du114, etc.).

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment with prison labor among the principal sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)