2015Gohap 418 Unexplosion of explosive objects (the name of the altered crime: the penalty against the heat of explosive objects)

A

Doctrine (prosecutions) and Doctrine (Public Trial)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

April 1, 2016

The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of this decision shall be published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

At around 00:50 on June 3, 2015, the Defendant reported 119 at the Defendant’s house of Nam-gu Seoul metropolitan apartment 106 Dong 501, the Defendant reported 119 as “to explosion the carbon gas by using mobile phones.” At around that time, he combines three of portable butane gas into tape on the table of the table, and prepares one of them as a lid off, and continuously prepares for a 119 report to the police officers and firemen who were called up with 119 report.”

As a result, the defendant tried to commit the crime in order to cause danger to human life, body and property by burning explosive objects.

2. Determination

In order to establish the crime of preliminary punishment for explosive objects, the defendant should have prepared the explosive objects with the intention, purpose and purpose of burning them.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was sufficiently proven beyond a reasonable doubt as to the fact that the Defendant had an intent and purpose to de facto explosion the carbon gas at the time of the act indicated in the facts charged.

① The Defendant consistently testified from an investigative agency to this court that there was no intention or intention to explosion butane gas.

② At the time of mobilization by police officers and firemen, the Defendant was in a ward under the influence of alcohol. Before the Defendant’s visit, but but butane gas and rater was on a kitchen table with approximately four meters away from the Defendant.

③ In addition, gas leakage should be done by either drilling or linking the devices to the butane gas for explosion. However, according to the photographs of seized objects and witness D’s testimony sent to the site at the time, the Defendant merely removed one of three parts of the two parts by combining them into tapes, and did not seem to have committed any act of gas leakage.

④ The Defendant, upon the perception of the police officers and the firemen, suspended the operation of the Defendant, and was sitting on the table, did not have any knife at all losses on the table, and did not stop or resist the police officers in the course of seizing but did not resist on the table.

⑤ According to the witness E, F, and D’s legal statement, police officers or fire-fighters sent to the scene are merely capable of preventing the Defendant from putting their knife and self-injury, and do not seem to have a pipe of the risk that shot gas may be explosiond.

3. Conclusion

The facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by deciding to disclose it under Article 58(2)

Awards and decorations by the presiding judge;

Judges Lee Jae-won

Judge Dok-un