logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2013.04.05 2012고정1251
실화
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On March 15, 2012, the Defendant: (a) around 12:50 on March 15, 2012, sent tobacco to Ulsan-gun C lower part of Ulsan-gun, and discarded cigarette butts.

Although the Defendant should dump the cigarette butt in a safe manner, due to the negligence of not extinguishing the fire of the beginning of the cigarette butt, the Defendant moved to turd by the fire remaining at the beginning of the cigarette butt around that time, and caused the victim's container office located in the vicinity and one portable toilet fire.

2. According to the statement of the defendant in the fifth protocol of the trial, the statement of the witness E in the third protocol of the trial, the witness F's statement in the fourth protocol of the trial, the occurrence report (fire), and on-site photographs, it can be acknowledged that the police officers and fire officers dispatched after the occurrence of the fire in this case make the statement that the defendant's smoking and fire officers caused the occurrence of the fire.

However, the Defendant, who was aware of the occurrence of a fire due to a cigarette shot, stated as above. After the above statement, the Defendant knew that he was unable to easily make the statement because he did not put the cigarette but did not put the cigarette but did not cause a fire. The Defendant asserted that the instant fire did not occur due to a cigarette shot.

Therefore, as to the occurrence of the fire in this case due to the fire of the tobacco that the Defendant had avoided, the following circumstances are revealed by the records of this case, namely, ① there is a studio construction site, a portable toilet, and a container stuff near the fire site, and it is difficult to conclude that there was no other person than the Defendant at the time of the fire site; ② the witness E, a police officer dispatched to the fire site, did not know about the first place of the fire because he did not properly conduct a field investigation; ③ the witness F, a fire officer dispatched to the fire site, did not know where the first place of the fire occurred.

arrow