beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The prosecutor of the grounds for appeal asserts that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the defendant purchased gasoline as stated in the facts charged and found the defendant preliminary fact of fire-fighting, such as dusting on his body and the floor of the department store, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have prepared for the purpose of committing fire-fighting.
2. Determination
A. At around 14:40 on January 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) sent the gasoline purchased in advance at the oil station in the front of the department store, on the following grounds: (b) in the Defendant’s “E” shop on the third floor of the Defendant’s wife in the “E” department store; (c) was suspected of having difficulty with wind due to the fact that the said F paid-in payment of the expenses for accommodation by his credit card; and (d) was frightening the said store; and (e) was frightening the gasoline purchased in advance at the oil station in the front of the department store, without carrying a rater, by dividing the gasoline purchased in advance at 1.8 square meters of the said department store into 1.8 square meters of the gasoline; and (e) spread the remainder to the above store floor.
Accordingly, the Defendant prepared to commit a fire-prevention on the structure of the department store in which many people exist.
B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.
C. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, all of the circumstances stated by the court below are recognized.
In addition, in full view of the fact that the Defendant did not act to take away the reporters located in the department stores, and moved to the department stores’ corridor and took them on his own, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the Defendant prepared to commit a fire-prevention against the structure of the department stores.
Therefore, as to the facts charged of this case.