(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.09.09 2015고단941

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) 창원지방법원 2015.09.09 2015고단941

현존건조물방화예비

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. At around 14:40 on January 4, 2015, the Defendant: (a) sent the gasoline purchased in advance at the oil station prior to the above department store by dividing the gasoline into 1.8 litrespond from the body of the Defendant’s “E” department store “G” store on the third floor of the Defendant’s wife in the “E” department store; (b) was suspected of having difficulty with wind due to the fact that the said F paid-in details with the former credit card; and (c) was able to infer the said store by dividing the gasoline purchased in advance at the oil station prior to the above department store into 1.8 litrespond from the body of the Defendant; and (d) 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.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the gasoline was spreaded to his body and store floor in order to put the gasoline into F, but did not actually aim to prevent fire.

(b)An offense of fire-fighting is established when preparation is made for the purpose of committing an existing building or fire-fighting, and thus, the accused must have a criminal intent to commit a fire-fighting to the existing structure.

C. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly examined and adopted by this Court, the possibility that the Defendant dumped the gasoline on the store floor rather than on the department store for the purpose of making it hot to F, cannot be ruled out.

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone sufficient proof to the extent that the defendant prepared to commit a fire to the present building for the purpose of actual fire-fighting is beyond reasonable doubt.

(1) From the police stage, the Defendant consistently thought that it was hot to F, but did not think of whether it was in fact a department store building.

(2) There is insufficient evidence to deem that the Defendant dumped gasoline on the floor of the store and cut the dump.

H In the police, the defendant shall gasoline.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.12.10 2015노2234

-부산고등법원 2014.10.02 2014노468

-부산지방법원 2014.06.27 2014고합189

-대전지방법원 2014.11.26 2014노2654

-의정부지방법원 2019.02.20 2018고단5158