[1] The time when the crime of fire prevention was committed

[2] The case holding that if a fire was not attached to the building itself even though the fire was destroyed by a fluort by setting a fluort and a fluort, the act of fire prevention was committed in an attempted crime

[1] The crime of fire prevention is a type of fire when the crime of fire prevention has been committed in a state of independent burning of the object regardless of the medium of fire power.

[2] The case holding that the act of fire prevention was committed in attempted crimes on the ground that the fire was not in a state of burning independently from the building, in case where the fire was caused by a fluoring match and the fluoring fire was destroyed, but the fluoring fire was not attached to the building itself

[1] Article 164 of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 164 of the Criminal Code

[1] [1]

Supreme Court Decision 70Do30 Decided March 24, 1970 (No. 18-1, 61)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-chul

Suwon District Court Decision 97Gohap544 delivered on October 10, 1997

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

57 days of detention before pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above sentence.

1. Determination on the grounds for appeal for mistake of facts by the defendant and his defense counsel

The crime of fire prevention is a unit of time when the defendant left the object which is capable of burning independently by himself. According to the evidence cited by the court below, according to the circumstances stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant's act of fire prevention was committed in a state of burning independently from the above building, and the defendant's act of fire prevention was committed in a state of burning independently from the above building unless damage is easily done by the above building. Thus, the defendant's act of fire prevention was committed in a state of burning independently from the above building. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and there is a ground for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel as to this point.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds for appeal by the defendant, the judgment of the court below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the criminal facts and the evidence against the defendant recognized by this court is as follows: although the last part of the crime No. 9 of the judgment of the court below was destroyed by a fire, etc., but around that time, the buildings No. 114 of the loan were not destroyed by fire due to the extinguishment by neighbors, and therefore, it is identical to that of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 174 and 164(1) of the Criminal Act

2. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

3. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act)

4. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the claim of mental disability

Although the Defendant alleged that he had a very rough and disorderly state of drinking alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, and had weak ability to discern things or make decisions, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant’s usual amount of alcohol, drinking volume at the time of committing the instant crime, the circumstances and means of the instant crime, the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime, and the circumstances after committing the instant crime.

Parts of innocence

The summary of the facts charged in this case against the defendant is that the defendant was guilty of the crime of attempted fire-fighting of the main building by setting fire and setting fire, etc. as stated in the facts charged in the judgment of the court below. Since the defendant's act does not reach the number of the main building fire-prevention and did so, the defendant's act should be pronounced not guilty as stated in the preceding reasons for reversal, and it shall include the facts charged of attempted fire-prevention of the main building. However, among the facts charged in the above facts charged, the facts charged of attempted fire-prevention of the main building shall be included in the charges of attempted fire-prevention of the main building, and as stated in the judgment of the court below without

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

Judges Lee Jong-dae (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)