(영문) 수원지방법원 2009.7.10.선고 2009고합190 판결

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months. The one day under confinement prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Facts of crime

The defendant, as a cargo transport business operator who drives a direct truck, requested B to pay transport charges to B, who works for "A" due to his/her failure to receive the transport charges, while he/she requested B to transport cargo of "00-0 'A' in Yeong-dong, Masung-dong, in the course of his/her verbal dispute, around March 25, 2009, he/she heard the words "plap driving or sea drinking" by telephone from B in around March 25, 2009;

On March 25, 2009, around 14:45, 200, 10 gasolines purchased at the gas station and 10 literss purchased at the gas station and found B as the above 'A' office "I wish to die from four years?" The purpose of the above 'B' office is to attach a fire to the office in which B, C, etc. are located and burns the office in which B, etc., by attaching a fire to the above office, 3/4 of the above gasolines were one hand in order to turn away from the above office. However, although C did not start fire by putting the Defendant's hand, with which C used the above office, and prepared the fire prevention of the above office, which is a existing building. The summary of evidence was prepared.

1. Each legal statement of the defendant and witness C in part;

1. Part of the police statement against C;

1. On-site documentary evidence photographs;

1. Investigation report (on-site exit status, etc.);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 175 (main sentence) and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Article 62(1)(Article 62(1)(Article 62(1)(Article 62(1))(Article 62(3)(Article 62(1)(Article 62(1))(Article 62(3)(Article 62(1))(Article 62(1)(Article 62(1))(Article 62(1))(Article 62(1)(Article 62

The acquittal portion

The facts charged of this case are as follows: "A was found to be an office of "A" around 14:45 March 25, 2009 with respect to the facts charged in the judgment of the defendant, and at around 14:45, it was tried to 3/4 of gasoline, which was spread away from the above office to the above office, and then used as a disposable gate B and C, etc. tried to fire the office in which the defendant had been posted, but it was attempted to commit an attempted crime by bombom with the defendant's hand, which was accompanied by the defendant's hand."

In order to have started the action of fire prevention, the action of fire prevention should be commenced. The concept of commencement of such action is a mark distinguishing the existing structure from the crime of fire prevention and the crime of fire prevention. In the case of the crime of fire prevention of the form of fire by extinguishing the structure through the media such as the above facts charged, it is necessary to turn on the gasoline, which is a intermediate object, or to put it into the intermediate object due to the act of the offender, and to reach the situation where the defendant can still put it into the intermediate object (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do641, Mar. 26, 2002). Thus, even if the above inflammable building with strong inflammable gasoline is spread on the object of fire prevention, it is not necessary to start the action of the defendant's statement that the defendant believed that the defendant did not have any other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's admissibility of evidence in light of the fact that the defendant's statement was not prepared by the judicial police officer, but it is not necessary to find the defendant's witness's remaining witness's statement.

Therefore, the facts charged in this case should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as it is found guilty of the existing structure and fire-prevention crime in the judgment that is included in the above facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do2461, Nov. 26, 1999; 9Do2461, Nov. 26, 199), it is a case where there is a difference in the elements of the crime, but there is no reason to strictly interpret the essential part of the modification of the indictment within the changed litigation procedure, and there is no substantial disadvantage in exercising the defendant's right to defense (realisticly, it is more unfavorable to the defendant as combined with the prosecutor's appeal if it is deemed necessary to amend the indictment). In this case, the defendant's action, not the defense counsel, is merely a preliminary crime of fire-prevention, but it is nothing more than a preliminary crime of fire-prevention, and even if the defendant's right to defense is not recognized separately.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.