2019No3181 Existing Building and Fire Prevention Reserve

○○○ (69*********), daily labor

Housing Naju City

Nabju City of Original domicile

Prosecutor

Park Jong-young (Court) and Kim Jong-chul (Court of Justice)

Law Firm Song River

Attorney Choi Han-soo

Gwangju District Court Decision 2019No2127 Decided December 5, 2019

April 1, 2021

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

One (White color, No. 1) and one for single use (Evidence No. 2) shall be confiscated, respectively.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Although the Defendant alleged that gasoline was rootsd in the room that there was no fact that gasoline was displayed, the Defendant did not have credibility in its statement, and instead, the Defendant found the Defendant not guilty of the instant criminal facts in light of the consistent statement and appraisal by the police officers dispatched to the site, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged

At around 23:45 on June 8, 2019, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that he was unable to return home at the home of the Defendant’s mother Kim ○ (the age of 82), who was aware that he was able to contact the Defendant’s siblings and asked the Defendant’s happiness, etc. to the Defendant; (b) was able to see whether he was able to make a false and reliable call; (c) he was able to do so; (d) he was able to do so, and (d) he was able to do so by the police officers who were dispatched after receiving a report 112.

Accordingly, the defendant was prepared for the purpose of setting fire to a building in which a person employed as a residence exists.

B. The judgment of the court below

The court below held that it is difficult for the defendant to appear in the court and make statements as a witness at the time of emergency arrest, that is, there is no objective evidence about the fact that the defendant spreads gasoline on the floor of the ward, but rather, the fire officers did not detect any volatile organic substance at all in the house where the fire officers laid down the floor of the ward, and that it is difficult for police officers to understand what is the case's 's body' or others. At the time of emergency arrest, it is hard for the defendant to find out that the defendant's act was conducted by the defendant at the time of 20 minutes after the dispatch of the scene at the time of emergency arrest, and that the defendant's act was found in the bar and the defendant's act cannot be seen as being conducted by the police officers without any objective evidence that it was hard to find out that there was no possibility that the defendant's act was conducted by the police officers at the time of the crime, such as gasoline and gasoline, and that there was no possibility that the defendant's act was conducted by the police officers at the time of this case.

C. Judgment of the court below

(1) In a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value which can lead a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, the interest of the defendant should be determined even if there is no doubt about the defendant's guilt. However, such conviction does not necessarily have to be formed by direct evidence, but can be formed by indirect evidence unless it violates empirical and logical rules. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to the facts of the crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that can not be established independently if it is established by mutual examination under mutual relation with the whole evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do3273, Oct. 22, 199; 2007Do10754, Mar. 13, 2008). 201). As such, there is no reasonable doubt or abstract doubt as to the facts of the defendant, it should be included in the Majority Opinion 201.

(2) According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① On June 8, 2019, the Defendant reported 112 to the effect that he assaulted her mother on June 23:46, 2019, and the police, upon receipt of the report, requested a joint response to the former fire fighting headquarters at immediately around 23:47, and the police officers were dispatched to the Defendant’s house located at the south of 23:55, and the fire officers were dispatched to the Defendant’s house located at the south of 23:56.

At the time of dispatch, the police officer’s door ○○ and Kim○, who called to the site, entered the Defendant’s house at the time of dispatch, and the Defendant entered the house without a locking condition. The Defendant stated that the Defendant was a white fluor in a ward in a fluened state, the Defendant fluor in a string, and the fluor in a fluent hand, and that a large amount of liquid assumed to be gasoline was spread in a ward, and that the Defendant was a situation in which the mother who was inside the inside was able to take a bath and put in a fluence.

③ In addition, the above police officers stated that the Defendant was able to leave the Defendant Kim 00 house first, and that the Defendant was able to leave the house outside the house, and that the Defendant was able to take 10 minutes out of the house, but the Defendant was able to take a defective emergency arrest while leaving the house by putting the house back fire again.

④ At the time of emergency arrest of the Defendant, the police officers posted a log on the part of the Defendant’s bar while making an emergency arrest, and seized a white copy in the Defendant’s house.

⑤ At the time, the unsstring distance of oil ingredients was spreaded on the floor of the defendant’s house living room. After emergency arrest, five fire fighters removed oil on the floor using the breath 8th (4-5 liter capacity) of the breath fire fighters after emergency arrest. However, the absorptions used to remove oil was not seized.

④ On June 9, 2019, the police officers belonging to the Jeonnam Provincial Police Agency around eight hours after the occurrence of the instant case, left the said Defendant’s house from around 07:40 to around 09:40. Accordingly, the “on-site identification report” written out as follows: (a) the mother of the Defendant, who was appointed together at the same time, stated that the Defendant Kim○ stated that “the Defendant sent gasoline on the front floor of the entrance of the entrance.”

7) On-site police officers assigned a small number of volatiles in a ward, and collected volatiles remaining on the floor of the ward.

8) As a result of the appraisal of the substance taken and seized in white cane as above, gasoline ingredients were detected from the substance contained in the seized white cane, but they were not inflammable substances. Also, locked fingerprints was not detected from the above seized white cane.

(3) In full view of the following circumstances in the above facts charged, the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept, and the police officer’s statement made a testimony consistent with the facts charged is deemed to have credibility, and in full view of the evidence presented in the judgment above, the Defendant attempted to attach gasoline at the time of the instant case to the ward’s floor, which was in possession of gasoline, can sufficiently be recognized.

① At the time of the dispatch, the police officers stated that, at the time of the dispatch, the Defendant used a white transit log presumed to be a gasoline in the ward, and the mother made a request for assistance to other police officers by citing her desire to attach a fire as “spawn and spawn” at the ward, her mother, her mother Kim ○ in the house, her mother was first released from the house, and the Defendant made the Defendant left the house to her house and again her was defective in her house. In light of this, the emergency arrest by the police officers is deemed justifiable, and the police officers at the time sent were also the Defendant and the police officers at the time sent to her conversation outside the house, and the Defendant was unable to enter the house 20 minutes between the Defendant and the Defendant, and accordingly, they stated that the above statements by the police officers and the fire officers at the time were consistent, specific, and detailed, and there are no other circumstances to reject their credibility and credibility.

The Defendant’s mother Kim○ stated in the lower court that the Defendant did not shot roots gasoline and that he was able to repent the water containing. However, the above Kim○ appears to have stated in the process of field identification on the following day of the instant case that the Defendant was shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot

There is no fact that inflammable substances have been detected in the process of field identification, but in the event that inflammable substances are completely burned or displayed due to a strong combustibility, they may not be detected in the inflammable substance. The above business is collected after about 8 hours from the time of the occurrence of this case. After the occurrence of this case, fire officers had already removed all the oil on the floor of the living room and at the time of the field identification, the oil remains almost in the living room at the time of the on-site identification, it is reasonable for the possibility that substances remaining in the string may not be detected by being inflammable. Also, the fact that the fingerprints has not been launched in the seized white can be seen as due to the characteristics, such as the quality of a flus, and the above white tank is supported by the fact that not only the defendant but also the mother of the defendant et al. did not have his fingerprints displayed.

4 한편, 당시 현장에 있던 흰색 통에서는 휘발유 성분이 검출되었고, 피고인이 깼다는 소주병은 현장 사진을 보아도 1병에 불과하여 거실 바닥을 뒤덮을 정도의 양으로 보이지 않으며, 흡착포(유흡착포1))는 성질상 유류만 흡수하게 되어 있어 소주가 흡수되는 것도 아니므로 거실 바닥에 있던 액체가 소주라고 볼 수는 없다. 게다가 피고인과 변호인은 식용유 등 다른 유류일 가능성도 주장하고 있으나, 식용유 등 다른 유류로 추정되는 액체나 이를 담은 통은 발견되지 않았고, 피고인 스스로도 집 안에 들어갈 당시 휘발성 냄새가 심하게 났다고 진술하였으며, 현장에 출동한 경찰관들 및 소방관, 그리고 현장감식 당시 출동한 경찰관도 모두 휘발유 냄새가 났다고 진술하는 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 현장에 뿌려져 있던 액체가 휘발유가 아닌 다른 액체일 가능성은 희박하다고 할 것이다.

⑤ At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s assertion that there was no reason for the police officer to commit a crime on his own with reporting 112. However, unlike the Defendant’s assertion at the time of the instant report, the Defendant voluntarily filed a report on his mother, which could constitute a crime, unlike the Defendant’s assertion. In addition, the details of the 112 report do not explicitly indicate the fire-related contents, the Defendant requested a joint response to the 112 report to the 112 report, and the police officer dispatched at the time of the instant report included the contents that the Defendant attempted to commit the Defendant’s fire-fighting attempt at the time of receiving the report. At that time, the Defendant stated that the mother ○○ in his mother, who was 7 illness and her mother was sent to the 112 report, and that the Defendant voluntarily reported her mother to the effect that the mother would be her mother. In addition, the Defendant did not have any reason to directly assert the Defendant’s demand. Then, it is difficult for the Defendant to do so.

(4) Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on this part of the facts charged on the ground that there is no proof of a crime. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, and therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

As stated in paragraph (1) above, the summary of the facts charged are as follows.

Reasons for sentencing

The defendant's crime was committed in a house in which he and her mother are living, and thus, he and she could cause serious harm to human life. Moreover, the defendant has been punished twice as the same crime of fire prevention, and there have been a history of having been punished several times as the crime of violence. In consideration of these criminal records and the contents of the crime, the risk of recidivism is also likely to occur.

The Defendant, who was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a crime similar to the instant case, was released on October 19, 2018 and was released from office on October 19, 2018, and was sentenced to criminal punishment during the period of repeated crime, and thus, is inevitable to be sentenced to criminal punishment. In addition, the Defendant’s act does not cause substantial damage as a result of the Defendant’s act, and all of the sentencing conditions stated in the records of the instant case, including the motive and method leading up to the instant case, the Defendant’

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judges Ish Sung

Judges Lee Jae-chul

1) The characteristic of the production of polypropye, which is a material of minority (non-friendly nature) by MB method, is htp:///Otill.com/old/Eululijl.