The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

항소이유 요지 이 사건 컴퓨터 본체 및 모니터 일부 뿐만 아니라 발화의 매개체가 되었던 신문지와 휴지도 소훼되었고, 화재 부근에 의자, 냅킨 등 가연성 물건들이 많이 있었던 점, 컴퓨터 등이 타거나 진화되는 과정에서 상당한 양의 연기가 발생하였던 점, 방화 후 피고인이 너무 놀라 스스로 물을 부어 불을 껐던 점 등에 비추어 보면 이 사건 식당 건물 내로 불이 번져 불특정 다수인의 생명, 신체, 재산을 침해할 구체적인 위험, 즉 공공의 위험이 발생하였다고 할 것이다.

Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that there was no public danger.

Judgment

As to the primary charged facts (the fire prevention of general goods), Article 167 (1) of the Criminal Act provides for punishing a person who causes danger to the public by setting fire a general object and then causing danger to the public, "public danger" refers to a specific danger that infringes on the life, body or property of an unspecified or a large number of unspecified persons.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12947, Jan. 14, 2010). Therefore, we need to examine whether the Defendant’s crime of this case poses public danger.

In light of the fact that the Defendant asserted as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, the court below held that “it is not sufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone causes a specific danger of infringing on the life, body, or property of many unspecified or unspecified persons, as a result of the Defendant’s act, on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the instant facts charged was committed, on the grounds that “the Defendant was only a mixed person inside the above restaurant at the time when the Defendant was in fire, and that the Defendant had already moved to or did not look at all other things except the body and monitor of the computer in which the Defendant was in fire, before the arrival