logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2014.05.01 2014고합21
현주건조물방화미수등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 21:00 on January 19, 2014, the Defendant: (a) asked D to the “Eju station” office of the Defendant’s father in Jeju-si to the effect that “the Defendant entrusted the operation of the “G” restaurant located in F at the Jeju-si where the Defendant was temporarily in operation,” but was rejected, the Defendant told D to the building of the Eju station and G restaurant.

1. On January 19, 2014, at around 23:20 on January 19, 2014, the Defendant attempted to extinguish the entire office with the amount of eight liters attached to the kitchen (I and mobile tank glass) connected to the kitchen which was installed in the above kitchen after using a golf house in advance prepared for the kitchen glass in the E-ownership office as stated in paragraph (1) operated by D and the mother of the Defendant living together. However, the Defendant attempted to destroy the entire office without having to go through the wind of the Defendant’s prone, which had been in possession of about 8 liters in advance, with the kitchens connected to the kitchens (I and moving tank glass) which were installed in the kitchens.

B. Around 23:30 on January 19, 2014, the Defendant attempted to extinguish the entire restaurant building by putting about 10 liters, which had been deducted from the main amusement installed in the gas station listed in paragraph (1), on the G restaurant floor located in F, at the Jeju city in which he lives of himself, and by putting about 10 liters, installed in the gas station listed in paragraph (1), and attempted to extinguish the said restaurant building by putting it out into a rack (proof No. 1). However, the Defendant did not go through an attempted attempt by the JJ, which reported the fluence, but did not go through its wind.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement made to J, K, and D;

1. The list of seizure;

1. Each investigation report and the application of the Acts and subordinate statutes governing the report;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Articles 174, 164 (1) of the Criminal Act (the points of attempted fire prevention of present building and attempted fire prevention) and Articles 174 and 166 (1) of the Criminal Act (the points of attempted fire prevention of general buildings) of the same Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall apply to concurrent crimes;

arrow