Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On December 24, 2019, at around 11:49, the Defendant: (a) smoked from the outside of the building C located in the Navy B, and discarded the cigarette butts at a safe place; (b) although the cigarette butts should be completely discarded, the Defendant left the scene without completely extinguishing the shot of the cigarette butt, and left the scene.

The Defendant, due to these negligence, moved fire to a incombustible article, etc. in the vicinity of the dyp around the dyp of tobacco butts, and around 12:14 on the same day, the fire was moved to the outer wall of the building and the ceiling of the beauty room.

Ultimately, the Defendant managed the victim D(41) and caused the damage caused by the victim E (43 Do, F)'s estimation of KRW 27,788,520 to perform repair work.

Summary of Evidence

1. A report on the occurrence of a witness G among the three-time public trial records in which the witness E's statement is recorded in the second public trial records of the witness F's statement at the court room (fire);

1. On-site reports on results of field identification and on-site photographs;

1. A report on internal investigation (on-site inspections and interviews with witnesses);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal accidents;

1. Article 170 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. 피고인의 주장 피고인이 이 사건 화재 현장에서 담배를 피운 사실은 있으나, 담배꽁초의 불을 확실히 껐기 때문에 화재가 피고인의 행위로 발생한 것이 아니다.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the facts charged in the instant case are determined to have been sufficiently proven to the extent that it could exclude a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

A. The fire of this case is south-gun.