Requirements for establishing a fire-prevention crime by omission

A person who causes a fire due to his own act which does not constitute a crime of fire prevention has a duty to attract the fire in a case where there is a risk of burning the object as stated in Article 164 of the Criminal Act, as well as to prevent a fire by omission when a person in the same position does not have an active intention to use the fire in the intention to extinguish the object or to use the fire, even though there is no intention to use the fire that had already occurred, and to prevent it from taking any measures necessary to extinguish the fire with the intention to recognize the occurrence of the result and to cite it.

Articles 18 and 164 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (70 senior 37249)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

100 days out of the number of days of detention before sentencing by the court below shall be included in the above sentence.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is as follows: First, the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, and the sexual matches that had been kept and protected in the protection room of the divers of the Nam-gu Police Station, are left toward the wall of the above protection room by attaching a cigarette, and the following circumstances cannot be known. However, the court below did not recognize the defendant as an act of a mentally handicapped person while taking the defendant into action as a crime of arson and did not recognize the defendant as an act of a physically handicapped person.Second, the judgment of the court below is unreasonable because the amount of the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant is too inappropriate.

First of all, I will examine the argument about mistake of facts in the grounds for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty on Sep. 11, 1970 and on the ground that the defendant was guilty of the crime that destroyed approximately eight thhon of the wall wall wall of both sides of the protective cellphones from the entrance of the protective cell, each of the defendant's statements at the court of law, the witness 1 and 2's statement at the protective cell room for the suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's suspect's room, attached tobacco's fluort with the fluort with the fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's fluor's.

I think, a person who causes fire due to his own act which does not constitute a crime of fire shall be deemed to be the crime of fire by omission if he does not take measures necessary to extinguish the fire if he is likely to burn the objects listed in Article 164 of the Criminal Act, not only the duty to attract such fire, but also the person in such position is already aware of the intention to extinguish the objects by using the fire power, or to use the fire power, and even if he does not intend to do so, if he does not take measures necessary to extinguish the fire with the intention to recognize the occurrence of the result, it shall be deemed that the crime of fire by omission is established. In this case, the court below found that the defendant did not have any other active reason to recognize that he did not have any effect on the fire by using the wall to the extent that he did not have any other fact that he did not have any other reason to recognize that the defendant had any effect on the fire by using the wall to the extent that he did not have any other active reason to recognize that the defendant had no effect on the fire.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the members are decided again.

The facts charged against the defendant were found to have no proof of the crime. However, the prosecutor added the facts charged in the trial to the preliminary facts charged, and the party member found guilty of the preliminary facts charged as stated in the following. Thus, the first facts charged should not be sentenced to a separate verdict.

(Criminal Facts)

On December 18, 1965, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment of one year and six months with prison labor for a violation of the Narcotics Act at the Seoul Criminal District Court and completed the execution of the sentence at the Seoul Criminal Court four times and was released from the prison on September 11, 1970, and was at least 17:45 on September 11, 1970, Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Station Security Station at 15, Jungdong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Lee Jae-gu Protection Office, which had a sexual match in custody as a suspect, attached a cigarette to the cigarette. Since the protection room has a high risk of being inflammable because it was sloponed with the slopon wall attached to the slopon wall, and if the slopon box was not completely carried out after completely sloponing the slop on the slopon wall, the Defendant was not able to fully exercise his duty of care to prevent the slopon from being able to protect the slopon.

(Abstract of Evidence)

The facts of the judgment are examined as follows:

1. A statement to the effect that it conforms to the facts stated in the judgment in the trial court of the defendant;

1. Statement to the effect that it conforms to the facts stated in the judgment at the trial court of Nonindicted Party 1 by the witness

1. Each statement in the trial records of the court below to the effect that it conforms to the facts in the judgment of the defendant;

1. Each statement in the trial records of the court below to the effect that it conforms to the facts in the judgment of the witness Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 2

1. Statement that corresponds to the facts indicated in the protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Statement that corresponds to the facts in the judgment among the statement statement of Nonindicted Party 1 prepared by the prosecutor

1. Records consistent with the judgment among the actual investigation records prepared for handling affairs by judicial police officers; and

1. The facts in the judgment are sufficient to prove the existence, etc. of the seized match 1 A (No. 1).

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

In light of the law, since the judgment of the defendant falls under Articles 171, 170, and 165 of the Criminal Act, the court below's judgment of the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of the prescribed term of punishment, and the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of the term of punishment. In accordance with Article 57 of the same Act, 100 days out of the number of

(Judgment under Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act)

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. However, according to the various evidences adopted above, although the defendant was breading a certain amount of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, it is not recognized that the defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking alcohol, so this argument cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)