beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and four months.
(e).
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The prosecutor (as long as there is no specific problem not more than the defendant A, the name of the defendant of each item is omitted and referred to only as "the defendant") 1) mistake of facts (the violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention, general buildings, fire prevention, and fire prevention) (1) mistake of facts (the violation of the Special Act on Insurance Fraud Prevention, general buildings, fire prevention, and general goods fire prevention) (hereinafter referred to as "D") operated by the defendant Da
(B) On November 20, 2017, the fire was not designated as the object to be lawful, and the occurrence of the fire occurred in D on November 20, 2017 (hereinafter “instant fire”).
(3) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of unlawful determination of the lower court on the following grounds: (a) as a result of the investigation into the fire site, it was presumed that the fire of this case was caused by an internal electric power distribution line, the current of the internal electric power distribution line, and the rapy to the adjacent combustible materials, as a result of the investigation into the fire site; and (b) it conforms to the facts charged in the instant case; (c) it is presumed that the fire of this case was caused by an excessive load in the two ruptures and three ruptures of the D three ruptures as a result of the investigation into the fire site; and (d) even if the external temperature at the time was 10 degrees, there was no reason to operate the said rupture and winding machine, it was strongly suspected that it was caused by an artificial retardation of imprisonment with labor by concentrating several ruptures and winding machines; and (d) when the Defendant stated that the Defendant intentionally caused the fire by an insurance fraud similar to the Defendant, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of unjust sentencing of the instant electric facilities.
B. Defendant A. The lower court’s judgment.