logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.06.20 2019노579
일반물건방화등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and misapprehension of the legal principle) is as follows: (a) there is a window of PVC material on the side wall of the port immediately adjacent to the port containing a piracy harmony in the field of this case; and (b) there is a situation in which the window can be put up if a certain period of time is heated on the window; and (c) there was a decision that there is a possibility that a fire may be moved to the surrounding goods if the harmony between the seaba to which the Defendant was put and the divers may be removed from the surrounding goods; and (d) it may be deemed that the divers of harmony between the seaba and the seabababababababababababababababababb

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. “Public danger” in Article 167(1) of the Criminal Act, which provides for a relevant legal doctrine or a general crime of fire-prevention, refers to a specific risk that infringes on life, body, or property of an unspecified or large number of people, and whether such risk is likely to result in such infringement in light of the empirical rule, based on specific circumstances, should be objectively determined.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12947 Decided January 14, 2010). B.

The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① there was a fire in the beginning of the second floor corridor of the building in question, but it seems that there was no easily movable property or material in the vicinity of the harmony of the fire in question; ② the defendant was listed in the net length that the defendant attached the harmony of the seaba, but did not move to any other place; ③ the defendant was at the site except for the case where the toilet was fluor, and thus, the fire was at the site, and thus, was also at the site.

arrow