2016Gohap42 Other buildings, fire prevention, ordinary motor vehicle fire prevention, and general goods owned by them

Fire Prevention, Fraud

2016Ma114 (Consolidation) thief

Kim A (91 years, inn), non-permanent,

Residence

Reference domicile

Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Dec. 1, 2011>

Attorney Kim Jae-young (Korean National Assembly Line)

May 13, 2016

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Criminal facts

" 2016, 42

1. Fire prevention of general goods under its own possession;

On September 21, 2015: at around 40, the Defendant 23:40, at the “00 building located in Ulsan Jung-gu,00,” the Defendant was able to fluorize his wife, and without any reason, she was in possession of waste at a construction site adjacent to the front part of the said building at the interior construction site.

Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed the fire by setting fire and caused fire to interior construction sites and 00 buildings, thereby causing public danger.

2. To prevent general buildings and fire;

On November 11, 2015: at around 00, the Defendant was unable to wear approximately 20§¯ with one stopet which was in possession of rubber fastening installed at the restaurant entrance without any reason in the “0-cafeteria operated by the least 00 mar-gu, Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu.”

Accordingly, the defendant set fire to another person's building by setting fire.

3. Ordinary automobile fire prevention; and

On December 31, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 51, 201, on the front side of the 00 upper water in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, 000, the Defendant was carrying the right part of the freight vehicle by having a single string straw, which was parked immediately next to the Defendant, with a single string string in possession of the string string string string in possession of the string string 200, without any justifiable reason.

Accordingly, the defendant destroyed another person's automobile by setting fire.

4. Fraud;

On November 15, 2015: around 30, the Defendant used a computer for up to 07:0 on the following day, when he/she committed an act as if he/she would pay to the maximum 00 employee who is an employee of Ulsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City 00 p.m.

However, the defendant did not have any intention or ability to pay user fees due to the absence of money.

The Defendant, by deceiving the victim as such, acquired the pecuniary benefits equivalent to 19,000 won from the victim.

“ 2016 Gohap114

On July 5, 2015: around 32, 00, the Defendant: (a) opened a door that was parked in the lower-class parking lot of 00,000 of the victim Lee Jong-gu, Daegu, 000 “0 KON 00,000 (Non-Lone Star) for a passenger car in the lower-class parking lot of the underground floor; and (b) stolen it with a wall containing one set of street North Korea, one set of string PC, one credit card, and 40,000 won in cash on the market price owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence (Omission)

Application of Statutes

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

Article 167(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of setting fire to the general goods owned by him, the choice of imprisonment), Article 166(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of general buildings, fire prevention and general automobile fire prevention), Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of fraud, the choice of imprisonment), Article 329 of the Criminal Act (the point of larceny and the choice of imprisonment)

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 Punishment and Fire Fighting in General Building with the most severe Punishment and Offense)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

1. The grounds for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year but not more than 22 years and not more than 6 months;

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

(a)in respect of the crime of fire prevention against general goods owned by the owner and the fire-prevention, the sentencing criteria are not set;

(b) To prevent general buildings and fire;

[Determination of Type] Fire Prevention, such as general standards, general buildings, etc. (Type 2)

[Special Convicted Persons] Where actual damage is minor (Subject to mitigation)

[Scope of Recommendation] One year to two years (the scope of mitigation area)

(c) Ordinary automobile fire prevention;

[Determination of Type] Fire Prevention, such as general standards, general buildings, etc. (Type 2)

【No Special Convicted Person】

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

(d) Fraud;

[Determination of Type 1] General Frauds less than KRW 100 million (Type 1)

【No Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of six months to one year and six months (basic area)

(e) Larceny (decision on the type of larceny) general larceny against general property;

【No Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of six months to one year and six months (the area of mitigation)

(f) Application of the standards for handling multiple crimes: The minimum limit of the recommended sentence for general motor vehicle fire-prevention, which is a basic crime for which the sentencing criteria are set, shall be observed, since each crime of the general goods fire-prevention by its own and the remaining crimes for which the sentencing criteria are not set, are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

3. Determination of sentence;

The crime of larceny committed repeatedly by the Defendant is in itself poor in the nature of the crime, in that it may cause large-scale damage due to a large fire, and committed the crime of larceny and general goods fire-prevention in this case before the period of probation expires after having been sentenced to imprisonment for four months on September 27, 2013, and having been sentenced to two years on September 27, 2013, and having been sentenced to the probation period, and in addition to the above probation judgment, the crime of larceny and larceny in this case has been subject to punishment for 14 times due to fraud and larceny, which is disadvantageous to the Defendant.

However, in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant and the age, family relations, criminal records, character and conduct, environment, means and method of the crime, motive and circumstance of the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered by the order, beyond the lower limit of the above sentencing criteria, taking into account all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the following: (a) the defendant recognized his mistake and reflects the defendant; (b) there was no loss of human life and property damage caused by the crime of this case; (c) there was no significant weight in property damage; (d) compensation for some victims; and (e) the pressure and pressure caused by childbirth; and (e) the defendant appears to have caused the

The number of judges in the presiding judge

Judges Cho Jong-chul

Judge Lee Jong-soo