2012Do7317 Fire prevention of general goods (the name of the conjunctive crime: Fire prevention of general goods owned by the person)

A person shall be appointed.

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 2011No3422 Decided May 31, 2012

2013, 4,25

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the primary facts charged

The court below found the Defendant guilty of the primary charges on the ground that the crime of fire prevention was committed in an attempted crime on the ground that the crime of fire prevention was committed on the ground that the Defendant was committed on the ground that the crime of fire prevention was committed on the ground that the Defendant did not have a separate penal provision as to the attempted crime of fire prevention on the ground that the Defendant was not guilty of the primary charges on the ground that the Defendant did not have a separate penal provision as to the attempted crime of fire prevention of general goods on the ground that the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that there was no separate penal provision as to the attempted crime of fire prevention of general goods.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s determination is justifiable, and there was no error by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the fire prevention.

2. As to the grounds of appeal on the conjunctive charges

A. Based on the circumstances set out in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the conjunctive charge on the ground that it was difficult to readily conclude that, at the time of the instant case, there was a perception and intent of manufacturing and installing a one-time shotbombombane in order to attract social interest and vision to the Defendant, and that there was merely the perception and intent of putting it against the Defendant, and that there was an awareness of the possibility of causing the occurrence of the fire of an object (a paper box) or that there was an internal intent to allow the risk of such a result to occur.

B. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept.

According to records and evidence duly adopted, the following circumstances are revealed.

① Although the Defendant’s establishment of one-time scarbomium and scarbium, which are the content of the scarbombane, are limited, the Defendant was also aware that the said content is inflammable substances.

② As a result, the National Institute of Scientific and Integrative Research and Integrative Research and Integratives of Motriium, Zinium, and sugar mixtures were mixed with six methods, and the combustibility was rapidly burned when a large quantity of smoke and flame was generated.

③ 피고인이 알코올램프로 위 내용물을 가열하면서 이를 종이상자로 덮었다는 것인데 , 당시 목격자의 진술에 의하면 ' 퍽 ’ 하는 소리와 함께 연기가 나며 순식간에 불이 붙었고 불길이 곧 수그러들기는 하였지만 높이가 1m에 달하였다 .

④ The place of crime was a handbre, where the general public passed through, and was 1 person’s demonstration at a place less than 7 meters away from the place of crime. The fence and the sweet, which actually moved to a sweld person, were the head.

In full view of these circumstances, even if the principal intent of the defendant, such as the defendant's assertion, was aimed at putting the contents of an abnormal person, it is reasonable to see that the defendant did not recognize that the occurrence of public danger may occur by cutting off the abnormal person covered by alcohol lamps in the process of heating the inflammable substances.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the ancillary charges solely based on its stated reasoning, which is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to willful negligence, thereby making a judgment. The prosecutor’s assertion pointing this out is with merit.

3. Scope of reversal

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the conjunctive facts charged cannot be reversed, and the part concerning the primary facts charged in this relation should be reversed together.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young.

Justices of the District Court

Justices Park Jae-young

Justices AI Shin -