(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.5.31. 선고 2018고합1125 판결

The defendant has committed the following crimes under the status that he/she has a weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to compilation or investigation:

"2018 Gohap1239"

At around 13:00 on November 2, 2018, the defendant thought that the victim D, who was living in the defendant's house before the defendant's house B apartment house C located in Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul, had his residence, entered the defendant's house and scattered things, and caused the damage to the repair cost of KRW 900,000, which is the co-owned property owned by the owner of the above apartment.

"2018 Gohap1125"

On November 12, 2018, at around 18:40, the Defendant: (a) pursuant to the above apartment B B, the apartment residents in their dwelling place, and (b) pursuant to the perception that they came into the Defendant’s house, the Defendant was able to monitor the Defendant; and (c) based on the perception that they came into the Defendant’s house, the Defendant laid down the wooden table above the wooden table located at the center of the Defendant’s dwelling place, and laid down the string of the material quality; (d) but (e) carried the string with the string as a disposableter, the 1) destroyed part of the wooden table

Accordingly, the defendant tried to fire the above B apartment Fdong used as a residence by setting fire, but did not commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

○ 2018Gohap1239

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A photograph of damage and a receipt of repair expenses;

○ 2018 Highis 1125

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. On-site photographs, detailed statement of processing reports 112, and on-site photographs;

1. Investigation report (Investigation of suspects A who are suspected of having a mental disease and necessity for diagnosis at a medical institution);

1. Medical certificates issued by G Council members on March 29, 2019, medical certificates issued by H Council members on January 22, 2019, fact-finding reply received from G Council members, and fact-finding reply received from H Council members, and fact-finding reply received from H hospital;

1. Seizure records;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 369(1) and 366(a) of the Criminal Act, Articles 174 and 164(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 369(1) and 366(a) of the Criminal Act, and Articles 174 and 164(1)(a) of the Criminal Act,

1. Mitigation of mental disorders;

In full view of Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act and Article 10(2)3 of the Criminal Act (from March 10, 2014 due to divorce with the former wife, business difficulties, etc. to October 17, 2018, prior to the instant crime, the Defendant was provided with counseling and pharmacologic treatment by the members of G mental health department, etc., and from the end of the end of 2017, the medical doctor in charge complained of the fear of surveillance or the difficulty of facing people around the surrounding. From the end of 2017, the Defendant argued that the Defendant was unable to take care of and provide consultation with the former wife, and that the Defendant did not easily improve the situation of emotional distress, etc. while maintaining treatment and consultation with the former, the Defendant was under surveillance of the apartment residents and was under influence at his own residence, and that the Defendant was under surveillance of each of the instant crime at the scene of the instant crime, and that the Defendant was under 10 1sturging the Defendant’s house.

1. Attempted mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment heavier than the punishment shall be concurrent crimes and the punishment shall be concurrent crimes prescribed in the crime of attempted fire-prevention, and the punishment shall be aggregated with the maximum term)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (General Considerations in Benefits of the Reasons for Determination of Punishment)

1. Probation;

The main sentence of Article 62-2(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the assertion;

The Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed an intentional act of extinguishing the entire apartment FF unit, since the Korea Exchange Administration had to perform the right of redemption at the time due to the editing and modern illness. As such, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have committed an intentional act of extinguishing the entire apartment FF unit, and it cannot be said that there was a commencement of the crime of fire prevention even though it was put up after cutting down the two lumber who were made up of reinforced timber and cutting down on it.

2. Determination

A. Whether to recognize it intentionally

The following facts can be acknowledged by the court legitimately adopted and completed the investigation. ① The defendant has been provided with mental counseling and medicine treatment for about four years immediately before the crime of this case. From the end of 2017, there was symptoms close to the damage network. ② The crime of this case was conducted by the apartment resident at the time of the crime, with the door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door. ② The defendant's opinion that the apartment resident was frightt to fright up, and ② the defendant's opinion that the defendant's house was fright up to the apartment resident. ② The defendant's opinion that the defendant's house was frightt to fright up the apartment's house door, it was not accepted as evidence from the police doctor.

B. Whether to commence the enforcement

(1) Relevant legal principles

In the case of a fire-fighting in the form of setting fire to the effect of setting fire by means of an object extinguishing a structure through a medium, if the offender puts a fire to the medium or puts a fire to the object which could continue to function as a burning by the act of the offender, it shall be deemed that there was the commencement of the crime of fire-fighting even if the building itself, which is the object, was not moved to the object due to the circumstance such as immediately extinguishing the fire. Whether there was the commencement of the crime in a specific case shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances such as the intent and awareness of the defendant at the time of the crime, the method and attitude of the crime, the scene and surrounding circumstances, the kind and nature of the object, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do641, Mar. 26, 2002);

(2) Determination

Examining the following facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier: (a) the Defendant attempted to extinguish an apartment using a key kita month as a medium; (b) the kita month with a fire was completely destroyed; (c) the kita month was completely destroyed; (d) the kita month was on the fluor, a considerable part of the inspection was confirmed; (c) a civil petition was filed against the 22th floor of the above 3rd apartment; and (d) the police officer went into the Defendant’s residence, if he was in a fluorial state, he was in a fluorial state; and (e) the fire officers went into the residence, but they were even in a fluorial state, and the fire officers went into the site to complete fire-fighting; and (e) the Defendant’s assertion that the building was put to a key fluor, which is a medium medium of fire prevention; and (e) even if the building itself was not relocated to the building itself, the Defendant’s assertion that the crime of fire-fighting was commenced is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1.The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for nine months to eight years;

2. Non-application of the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria are not set on the current owner's building and attempted crime of arson, and the lower limit of the sentencing criteria is one month, and they shall not be applied.

3. Determination of sentence (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, and probation).

(1) Unfavorable circumstances: The defendant is not good to commit the crime in that he/she has prevented apartment residents from monitoring him/her and her from entering his/her house in that he/she destroyed by putting up his/her next fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorials, and attempted to go off to the apartment in which 264 households reside in total 3

The circumstances favorable to ○○: The symptoms symptoms were serious while receiving mental counseling and drug treatment due to the divorce with her wife, the failure of his business, etc., leading to the occurrence of efficiencies at the time of the instant crime; the Defendant appears to have been a direct cause for the instant crime; the Defendant’s efficencies, but the Defendant’s efficencies, but did not have any personal and physical damage to the apartment residents; the Defendant paid and agreed to compensate for the expenses incurred in replacing the fluencies, the fluencies, the fluenes, and the fluenties; the Defendant was sentenced to a fine of one million won for the crime of assault in 2018; and the Defendant was able to look together with I, a punishment after the instant crime, and take responsibility for the improvement of the Defendant.

In light of the above circumstances, the sentencing conditions specified in the trial process of this case, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, family environment, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

Judges

The presiding judge, judges and grandchildren;

Judges Cho Il-hwan

Judges Seo-won

Note tin

1) Although the facts charged are not stated as "the failure to take place by himself," the above facts are recognized by the defendant's statement, the statement of handling the 112 reported case, etc.

(ii) evidence records 143 pages

3) Of the trial records, the Defendant’s statement that he received from H Hospital was difficult to believe in light of the Defendant’s health condition at the time, the Defendant’s statement to the police officer immediately after the commission of the crime, and the statement made by the doctor in charge, etc.

5) from January to 8 (Discretionary, not subject to punishment)

참조조문