logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.05.24 2013고단628
현주건조물방화예비
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a laundry in the trade name of Gyeongginam-si B.

The defendant, with regard to a monetary obligation of 100 million won, provided the defendant's mother C with an apartment building owned by his/her mother as a security, asked the victim to get a loan, and asked several times, but the victim refused to do so, and was frightened to the victim by burning it into the victim's residence.

On January 16, 2013, at around 23:10 on January 16, 2013, the Defendant prepared one plastic tank with the capacity of 2 liters containing the rewing mold, which is used by the Defendant in B laundine operated by the Defendant, and sought to find 202 Dong 210, E apartment building, which is the victim's residence located in B laund-gu, in e-house 202.

The defendant, who has reached the entrance door of the victim's residence, tried to walk the entrance door by walking the door, open the door, open the door, and welve the sfin's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn's kn'

Accordingly, the defendant was prepared to prevent the victim's residence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. Investigation record of seizure by the police;

1. Investigation report (on the present main building and attempted crime prevention);

1. Application of the photographic Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Articles 175 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. As for the reasons for sentencing of Article 48(1) of the Confiscation Criminal Act, the Defendant’s crime of this case did not reach the course of fire prevention execution, the Defendant’s crime of this case is unlikely to be deemed to pose a risk of repeating a crime due to stress in the process of self-management of the Defendant’s disease and self-management, and the Defendant’s crime is recognized and repented.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow