logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2021.03.31 2020노2354
현존건조물방화미수등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant did not have the degree to which the victim could have been led to other books, and in fact did not move to other households, etc., the Defendant got the victim to extinguish the fire without using gas bags and doing any other act, and the Defendant did not have any media to move to the structure. Therefore, the commencement of the commission of the crime of extinguishing the existing structure cannot be recognized.

B. The Defendant, who was physically and mentally weak, committed the instant crime under a state of mental and physical weakness due to excessive drinking and disturbance of labor union.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the case of a crime of fire-fighting in the form of setting fire to the effect that a structure should be destroyed by an ignitionation via a medium, if the criminal committed a crime of fire-fighting in the form of setting fire to the effect that the structure itself, which is the object, was the object of the crime, due to the reason that it was immediately extinguishing, etc., if the criminal committed a crime of fire-fighting by turning on the medium, or by putting it to the intermediate object due to the act of the criminal.

Even if there was a commencement of the crime of fire prevention.

However, whether there was the commencement of such an action in a specific case ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances, such as the intent and awareness of the defendant at the time of the crime, the method and mode of the crime, the scene of the crime and its surroundings, the type and nature of the intermediary, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6641, Mar. 26, 2002). However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the defendant is called as “the dead person as the victim,” and, in a very interesting situation, use in the cremation room for the victim as his hand.

arrow