(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.11.03 2017고합151

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.11.03 2017고합151

현존건조물방화미수

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) from the elevator in operation of the D Building, which is the Defendant’s residence located in Sanyang-gu, Sanyang-gu, Sanyang-si, the Defendant: (b) put the alcohol on the banner installed in an elevator with a dynamicly attached to the elevator after drinking it; (c) continued to put it on one’s house, put it back on the elevator’s house, and then put it into fire by using a throwter; (d) but (e) the lessee, who was the lessee of the above building 402, which was in a mast elevator, was discovered in the above building, and attempted to throw it out before a fire was moved to the elevator.

Accordingly, the defendant tried to fire a building in which many residents of the above E, etc. were in existence, but did not commit attempted crimes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A statement prepared by the F;

1. Each investigation report (Nos. 8 and 9 in the list of evidence);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 174 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Articles 174 and 164 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for a limited term;

1. Mitigation of attempted punishment: Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel regarding the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Act on Reduction of Small Quantity, and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act

The argument is asserted.

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case, the defendant is deemed to have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol dependence on the time of the crime of this case, and the fact that the defendant received the clinical presumption of alcohol dependence on the time of the crime of this case and received the diagnosis of intellectual disability. However, in light of the background leading to the crime of this case, the details of the crime, the attitude of the defendant, and the circumstances before and after the crime of this case, etc., it seems that the defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to alcohol disorder and intellectual disability at the time of the crime of this case.

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.03.31 2015고합359

-서울북부지방법원 2018.01.12 2017노2171

-대구지방법원 경주지원 2021.01.14 2020고합7

-서울북부지방법원 2014.11.21 2014고합409

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.24 2018고합402