logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.11.21 2017고정508
실화
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. 공소사실의 요지 피고인은 2017. 4. 15. 22:50 경 안양시 만안구 C 아파트 121동 306호 피고인이 홀로 거주하는 아버지 소유의 피고인의 집 안에서, 쑥뜸을 하던 중 불씨가 솜이불에 옮겨 붙어 연기가 피어나는 것을 발견하였다.

In such cases, the Defendant has a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of a fire in advance by taking measures, such as confirming that water roots was completely cut off.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not confirm that the plant spawn with a spawn in the plant spawn of the plant spawn and spread the plant spawn on several occasions, but did not confirm that the plant spawn completely cut the plant spawn, and that the plant spawn remains in the plant spawn around that time.

Ultimately, due to the above negligence, the defendant destroyed the building owned by the father of the defendant so that the repair cost equivalent to approximately KRW 30 million between the market price of KRW 40 million and KRW 40 million, and at the same time destroyed the household appliances owned by the defendant, thereby causing public danger.

2. As evidence showing that there was negligence on the part of the Defendant as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case, there is some testimony of the aforementioned D that D, the police officer, who was the police officer, at the scene of the instant fire after the instant fire, was fest from the Defendant at the time of the on-site identification, evour, evour and evoured, and evoured and evoured from the Defendant at the time of the field identification.

In this regard, the prosecutor's testimony is admissible in accordance with Article 316 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The argument is asserted.

However, according to Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is necessary to prove that the defendant's statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances, and there is no evidence to prove that the above D was informed of the defendant's right to refuse to make a statement at the time when the fire site of this case was discovered.

Therefore, the defendant's statement is especially.

arrow