The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the court below erred in the incomplete hearing as to the cause of a fire.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the occurrence of a fire on the ground that the fire occurred due to the outbreak of a fire by opening a hole of air control in a shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot and heating a shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot s

Article 170 of the Criminal Act, Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A

Defendant

Suwon District Court Decision 90No1616 delivered on June 19, 1991

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, if the defendant was found to have been at the time of 198.1. 31. 1. 09 and to have been at the time of the above-mentioned office building, he was at the time of fire-fighting and fire-fighting shock, and the defendant was at the time of the above-mentioned office building with a lot of fire-fighting equipment, such as fire-fighting equipment, and the fire-fighting equipment was at the time of the above-mentioned office, and the fire-fighting equipment was at the time of the above-mentioned office, and the fire-fighting equipment was at the time of the above-mentioned office, and the fire-fighting equipment was at the time of the above-mentioned office, and the fire-fighting equipment was at the time of the above-mentioned office, and the fire-fighting equipment was at the time of the above-mentioned office, and the fire-fighting equipment was at the time of the above-mentioned office, and the fire-fighting equipment was at the time other than the above-mentioned office, and the fire-fighting equipment was still at the same time as the fire-fighting equipment.

2. However, even if the situation such as the above original adjudication is recognized, even if the air condition of the instant column is overheat by opening a hole in the air condition of the instant column, it shall be recognized that there is a possibility that it may be applied to the shock wave located far away from the 50cm, but the defendant may be held liable for the actual liability. In such a case, it is difficult to view that there is a possibility that it might be applied to the shock shock not less than 50cm in light of the empirical rule, and there is no other data to find out whether there is a possibility of equivalentization, even after examining the record.

Rather, according to the testimony of the first instance court witness J and the investigation report bound in the investigation records (hereinafter referred to as 120 et al.), it is recognized that the possibility of humanization could not be confirmed in the state of burning smoke by opening the air-conditioning hole in the above column to the extent that the defendant asserts, and making it impossible to confirm the possibility of humanization in the state of burning smoke.

또 원심은 이 사건 화재당시 전기가 차단되지 않고 공급되었던 점으로 보아 합선에 의한 누전이 아니라고 보고 있으나, 원심이 채용한 원심증인 G, K의 진술에 의하면 이 사건 화재당시 전기불이 한두 번 나갔다고 진술하고 있고, 원심이 위 판결이유에서 인용한 L의 경찰진술에 의하면 전선의 피복이 녹아 합선이 됨으로써 누전이 되는 경우에는 갑자기 부하가 흘러 깜박 거린다는 것이므로(수사기록 41정) 전기공급이 계속되고 있는 중에도 합선으로 인한 누전이 있을 수 있음을 알 수 있다.

In addition, the court below cited the possibility of electric melting, even though there is no electrical melting or scamsing that show the possibility of electric fire in the wire at the instant fire site, but according to the appraisal report (Investigation Record 118) of the National Scientific Investigation Institute M and N document prepared by the court below, the electric melting or scams can be known that electric wires may not be detected when remelted by external flames. Thus, the above original judgment is inappropriate.

3. After all, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the arguments on this issue are with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)