2021 High 14 High Purpose Building, Attempted Fire, Violence

2021 initially 347 Application for remedy order

A

The Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the Korean War, the Korean War, and the Korean War

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

C

April 16, 2021

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and ten months.

The seized Rab (MLB) one (No. 1) and sphphachloro (2 liters) shall be confiscated, respectively.

Of the facts charged of this case, the prosecution against assault is dismissed.

An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Criminal History Office

【Criminal Power】

On August 29, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. in Busan District Court on August 29, 2018 and completed the execution of the sentence in the Changwon Prison on November 5, 2020.

【Criminal Facts】

On December 27, 2020, at the D-1st floor parking lot located in Busan around 00:11, the Defendant asked the former wife to look at, but refused, sent the gasoline purchased by E at the request of the Defendant, and sent it to the fourth vehicle parked in the above building, including F-owned G car parked in the above building, and attached it to a gaser stop, and then put it back again into the said G-owned passenger car, and then put it back into a ushel for gasoline by attaching it on the above G-owned passenger car, and then, the Defendant tried to fire the above D-owned passenger car parked in the next H-owned passenger car by attaching it by the same method, but at the time, the police officer dispatched after receiving a report of 112 on the last day did not have the wind to see the way and extinguishing it into a fire extinguishing machine for the vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant tried to set fire to the existing building by F, etc., but attempted to commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 174 and 164(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act, proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

1. Attempted mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on Defendant’s and defense counsel’s argument

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant attempted to prevent a vehicle parked in the instant Ba, and did not have an intention to commit fire on the instant Ba. Moreover, the Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of drinking with the mental and malute after taking excessive clothes due to a decentralization disorder, depression, etc., and thus, the Defendant committed the instant crime under the influence of drinking. As such, the Defendant was in the state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

2. Determination as to the intention of the present owner's building and fire prevention

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court: ① the Defendant was set up in the parking lot of the first floor of the instant Bara, but the entire 1st floor of the instant Bara was used as the parking lot; even if the 1st floor parking lot is not in a closed wall, it does not in fact differ from the building inside the building; ② the Defendant was able to put the said parking lot more easily by dusting gasoline, which was located in the bar owned by the Defendant who would not be easily attached to the FG car; ③ the Defendant was able to cut off the above 5th vehicle parked in the above Bara, and then, it is probable that the Defendant would stop using the elevator without any doubt that it would have come up to the length of the parking lot of the instant case, even if the Defendant was aware of the fact that the 1st floor of the instant Bara was not in front of the elevator due to the vehicle or the fuel or various inflammable substances, and the Defendant was also able to stop up to the direction of the parking lot of the instant case.

3. Determination as to the claim of mental disability

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, such as the defendant's statement in court, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant received medical treatment after undergoing diagnosis, such as alcohol dependence support group, mid-to-underway, etc., but the defendant clearly memorys the situation at the time of the crime of this case, the defendant caused the crime of this case on the ground that the former part of the defendant did not have a telephone without showing his own children, the defendant contacted the latter part of the ship to put it into the urb, thereby allowing the defendant to purchase gasoline, and the defendant was aware that he could not operate the elevator if he was put into a urb, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant had the ability to distinguish things or make decisions.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and defense counsel.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months from June to 25 years;

2. Scope of recommending sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria shall not apply to crimes of attempted crimes;

3. Determination of sentence: One year and ten months of imprisonment;

○ Unfavorable Circumstances: Fire-fighting crimes are likely to undermine public safety and peace and cause damage to an unspecified number of life, body, or property, which is highly dangerous, and the defendant committed fire-fighting on the loan of many people living in late night hours without his own legation, and in light of the motive of the crime, the crime of this case was committed at the time when the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for a long time, and the defendant committed the crime of this case at the time when he was released from prison, even though there has been a long time, and the defendant has been punished for the same kind of crime, it is necessary to severely punish the defendant.

The circumstances favorable to ○: The defendant does not directly fire the Ba of this case, but the fact that the police was promoted prior to the transfer of the Ba of this case to the Ba of this case (However, the police discovered and extinguishing a fire that was dispatched after receiving a report on the violence of the defendant), and the fact that the defendant agreed with the owner of the I of the vehicle among the vehicles in which the defendant was born, etc. is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, all of the sentencing factors in the instant case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive of the crime, means and result of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as ordered in comprehensive consideration.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. Summary of the facts charged

On December 26, 2020, the Defendant assaulted the victim by means of breaking the head debt of the Victim K from receiving delivery food at the parking lot on criminal facts on December 26, 2020, at around 23:58.

2. Determination

The above facts charged are crimes falling under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act and cannot be prosecuted against the express will of the victim under Article 260 (3) of the same Act. According to the statement of "agreement and non-prosecution of punishment submitted to this court on March 17, 2021", it can be recognized that the victim has withdrawn his/her wish to punish the defendant after the prosecution of this case. Thus, this part of the indictment is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judgment on an application for compensation

The crime of attempted fire prevention of the main building is not the case subject to the application for compensation order, but the scope of the defendant's liability for compensation is not clear, so the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation pursuant to Article 32 (1) 1 and 3 and Article 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

The presiding judge, judge and assistant judge

Judge Min Il-young

Judges Park Dong-dae