The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is that the Defendant attempted to commit an attempted crime by a fire fighter, who was in possession of at least seven persons, such as the patient clothes and nursing steering staff, on the top of the wheelchairs in the front of the instant hospital operated by the victim C (hereinafter “the instant hospital”) around 00:45 on April 17, 2018 at the Jinju-si-si D (hereinafter “the instant hospital”), five floors, and E Hoin hospital (hereinafter “the instant hospital”) at the front of the hospital without any justifiable reason, by attaching a fire to the front of the instant hospital, to the front floor of the instant hospital, where at least seven persons, such as the patient clothes and the wheelchairs, were placed on the front floor of the instant hospital. However, although the fire fighter, who was reported at the 119th of the nursing assistant, was dispatched to the front floor of the instant hospital in the instant building.

2. The gist of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion is that the Defendant intentionally committed an act identical to the facts charged, even according to the evidentiary evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, as stated in the facts charged, even though the Defendant did not accurately memory the date and time, and the background leading up to the occurrence of a fire at a place specified in the facts charged, due to symptoms such as external cerebrovassis.

It shall not be readily concluded.

3. Determination

A. In a case where the criminal defendant denies the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of a constituent element of a crime, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved, and thus, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts relevant to the criminal intent in light of the nature of the object.

In such a case, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial fact ought to be determined by a reasonable method of determining the link of facts based on normal empirical rules by means of a thorough observation or analysis (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). In particular, in determining whether a defendant had an intention to commit a crime against the existing structure or fire, the background leading up to the crime, motive for the crime, and the object, method, place with fire attached, and place of the crime.