(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.06.22 2018고합45

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.06.22 2018고합45

가스방출미수

Text

The punishment of the accused shall be determined by a year of imprisonment.

Seized evidence No. 1 (L.) shall be confiscated.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 30, 2018, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months by force by the Chuncheon District Court and was under suspension of execution for two years by force.

The Defendant, at around 12:00 on May 11, 2018, was notified by a public official belonging to the Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, D of the Defendant to the effect that the Defendant’s taxi driver’s license will be cancelled on May 11, 2018, in relation to the Defendant’s residence, on the grounds that the Defendant’s taxi driver’s license would be cancelled on May 11, 2018, and tried to open a valve through the main gas (LPG) connected with the main gas and to emit the high-pressure gas in their knife, but did not emit gas due to the sudden gas from the main gas.

Accordingly, the defendant, by gas emissions, tried to cause danger to human life, body or property, but attempted to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. On-site photographs of the case;

1. Application of statutes on records of seizure and lists of seizure;

1. Articles 174 and 172-2 (1) of the Criminal Act relating to the facts constituting an offense;

1. As to the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 48(1)1 of the Confiscation Criminal Act, the Defendant and his defense counsel knew that there was no gas in the professional gas (LPG) connected to the main gas, and thus there was no intention to emit the gas. Even if the intent to emit the gas was acknowledged, it was impossible to generate the outcome of gas in the professional gas without the gas, and there was no danger of doing that act. Thus, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant constituted an impossible crime, since the Defendant was aware that there was no gas in the professional gas (LPG) connected to the main gas.

On the other hand, even if based on the Defendant’s statement, it was intended to use a gas scrap prior to the instant crime 2-3 days, but it was known whether there was no gas gas due to the gas scrap not entering the instant crime. As such, it can be said that there are various reasons for gas bags to not work normally.

참조조문

-형법 제48조 제1항 제1호

-형법 제172조의2 제1항

-형법 제174조

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.01.26 2016고합436

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.11.22 2017고합185

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2019.10.17 2019고합120

-대구지방법원 2016.06.08 2015고정2263

-인천지방법원 2021.02.04 2020고합616