2013Gohap529 Dozed residential buildings, fire prevention, and attempted fraud

A (************************), daily part.

Residence

Reference domicile

Dang-Jeng (Lawsuits) and Kim Sung-dong (Trial)

Attorney 000,000

October 16, 2013

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Criminal History Office

From February 26, 2006, the Defendant resided in Seoul* the Gu** the Gu* on the first floor of the multi-family house located in this case.

1. Dried building or fire prevention;

On April 27, 2004, the Defendant subscribed to Samsung Fire Mar. Ma home heart Insurance, and the coverage period from the time of the purchase to April 27, 2019. The coverage period includes KRW 10 million in the event of damage caused by a fire, KRW 10 million in the event of injury or death caused by a fire, KRW 50 million in the event of theft, KRW 30 million in the event of lessee’s liability for compensation, and KRW 10 million in the event of lessee’s damage. In addition, the Defendant purchased 7 insurance policies including five guarantee policies, and KRW 499,100 in each month, and KRW 100 in the event of damage caused by a fire.

Meanwhile, on July 15, 201, the Defendant: (a) paid the down payment amount of KRW 30 million by entering into a contract with the amount equivalent to KRW 300,000,000 on 15, 201. Seoul****Gu************* the amount equivalent to KRW 30,000,000 on an officetel; and (b) paid the intermediate payment and interest due to the instant officetel with the remainder of the remainder of KRW 270,000,000 on the part of the Plaintiff; (c) had to raise money until November 201.

On November 19, 2011, the defendant around 03:00 :00 * the Gu* the defendant's house 1st floor of the multi-family house located in the Dong 1st floor with a fire attached to the clothes that were in sexual harassment. Then, the defendant had a strings on the main floor of the house, attached a strings on the main floor and carried a strings on the household gate and the ceiling, and had a fire spread to the other parts of the house 20

Accordingly, the defendant destroyed the above building which is used as the residence by the maximum 00 persons and about 30 persons living in the public.

2. Attempted fraud;

On November 19, 201, the Defendant: (a) on November 22, 201, the Defendant voluntarily committed a house in order to receive insurance proceeds, such as the Samsung Fire Mar home core insurance, etc.; (b) on November 22, 2011, he/she completed the receipt of both accidents that: (c) by hiding the aforementioned circumstances into a robbery; and (d) caused damage by taking property by force; and (d) on May 2, 2012, the Defendant submitted a written claim for the payment of insurance proceeds at the compensation office of the victimized Company for the damage company to obtain KRW 20 million; (b) however, the victimized Company refused the payment of insurance proceeds on the ground that the fire investigation was not completed; and (c) failed to complete such investigation and attempted to do so.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of 00, 000, and 000 of the witness;

1. Partial statement of the suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Partial statement of each police statement against the defendant;

1. Each police statement of 00,000, 000, 000, 000, 000, Maximum00, and 000;

1. (Fire Report, Investigation Report, Office of Fire, Office of Fire, Office of Investigation (Presumption of Fire, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation (2nd Resident Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation (2nd Resident), Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation (2nd Resident, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation (2nd Resident, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation, Office of Investigation and Investigation, etc., (60th Investigation Report, Office of Investigation and Investigation, etc.)

Circumstances, etc.)

1. On the result of a fire site identification, identification photographs at the scene of the fire, and map maps at the scene of the fire;

1. Details of A telephone call, requests for provision of each communication data, and details of each communication data and correspondence;

1. Details of replies by each financial institution (Article 79 through 92 of the Evidence Records);

1. List of 112 reported cases handled, respectively;

1. Comprehensive reports on fire occurrence, reports on fire site evacuation and emergency medical services;

1. General terms and conditions of non-distribution line insurance Ⅳ

1. Fire site photographs (Evidence Nos. 4), street signs photographs of fire site (Evidence No. 110), photographs (Evidence Records No. 140);

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act (the fire prevention of the present building, the choice of limited imprisonment), Articles 352 and 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the attempted fraud and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Concurrent Crimes with Punishment heavier than Punishment) of the Criminal Act (within the scope of the sum total of the long-term punishments of the above two crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Determination as to the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

1. Summary of the assertion

On the date and time of the instant criminal facts, the Defendant intrudes on a house where the Defendant was living, and 6 million won in cash was cut off from the Defendant, and sprinked, and sponsed the Defendant, and the Defendant claimed insurance money normally from the insurance company upon the occurrence of a fire. Accordingly, the Defendant did not commit an offense falling under the crime of fire prevention or attempted fraud.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

In a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is doubt about the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined as the benefit of the defendant. However, such doubt is not necessarily required to be formed by direct evidence, but it may be formed by indirect evidence unless it violates empirical and logical rules. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to the crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that is not independent if comprehensive examination of all evidence is conducted under mutual relation, even if it is not possible to acknowledge the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do327, Mar. 23, 1993).

B. Determination

Based on the above legal principles, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the defendant's assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel cannot be accepted, since the defendant was sufficiently recognized as having frightened in the house where she had resided as stated in the facts constituting the crime of this case, and as if she had invaded upon robbery, the fact that she had received insurance money from the insurance company is false.

1) According to the Defendant’s statement and the photograph (Evidence Nos. 4, 114, 137, 140) and the fire site map (Evidence Nos. 115) on the Defendant’s house structure and the fire site of this case, the house of the Defendant where the fire in this case occurred consists of a bank room and a bank room. There is an open space, and there is a door leading to a door leading to the bank, a door leading to the bank, and a door leading to the bank from the bank to the bank, and the main floor is higher than the above vacant space. Thus, it is linked to the bank and the above open space to the stairs column.

Furthermore, according to each statement in 000, 000 and the result of the fire site identification in this court, it is recognized that there was a separate combustion from the main floor because of the four primary harassments on the left side of the defendant's house, where there was the second primary harassments, and the main floor of the bank, and there was a trace of burning the clothing by stockpiling it on the main floor.

2) As to the possibility that a male in secret name has committed the fire prevention of this case

With respect to the fire of this case, the Defendant: “The date of the fire of this case was the fire of this case, the Defendant diversed knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, or knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife in the body of this case; the Defendant’s name knife knife knife in the body;

① The Defendant consistently stated from the investigative agency to this court that he was sleeping the door door of the instant fire on the date of the instant fire occurrence. According to the statement in this court, the results of the fire site identification, and the on-site photographs (Evidence Nos. 4, 114, 137, 140 of the evidence record), the Defendant’s locking device was not destroyed, and the robbery was otherwise invaded.

② According to the statement in this Court at 000, investigation report (A 200 counterpart investigation officer - Fire fighters 00) and the Defendant’s photograph (Evidence Nos. 1) taken on the date of fire occurrence, when the Defendant was found to fire fighters outside the front door on the fire date of this case, the Defendant’s hand was bound by two times from the rear side of the lower side of the Plaintiff’s hand by scarpros in the form where the scarpros are put in hole, and the Defendant’s scarpros were repeated. However, each location of the Defendant’s scarpros were repeated. This is naturally consistent with the Defendant’s statement that the strength was filled with the Defendant’s descendants and trees above on the rear side of the Defendant’s fire fighters, and furthermore, the Defendant’s hand scarpross were boomed and the possibility of using the scarpros.

③ If robbery took place with the Defendant’s hand, it is natural to view that the Defendant: (a) was able to unfold the robbery and boom the Defendant’s hand; and (b) there was a possibility that there was a red himself or a wound with respect to the Defendant’s hand; and (c) there was no evidence that the Defendant’s photograph (Evidence Nos. 1) taken on the date of the instant fire on the Defendant’s hand does not appear to have red himself or any wound; and (d) there was no evidence that the police officer dispatched to the scene, firemen, or first-aid workers observe this, on the part of the Defendant’s hand.

④ The Defendant stated that he was unable to sustain the Defendant due to robbery, and that 119 fire fighters deducted this case. However, at the time of the arrival in the fire site, 000 stated that the Defendant’s fingers were bound to be satisfed, but did not memory as to whether the Defendant was satisfed, while the Defendant’s fingers at the time of his arrival in the fire site, and that the investigation report containing the statement 000 (halfh - repeated 00 fire fighters) was made after the occurrence of the instant fire and the comprehensive report on the occurrence of the fire did not contain any indication that the Defendant was satisfed, and it is difficult to recognize the authenticity of the Defendant’s statement on this part.

⑤ From the front door to the front door, if the Defendant moves out of the front door, the front door of the Defendant’s house structure would be excessive. As seen above, each statement about 000,000 and 000 were located in the house at the time of witnessing the Defendant’s house to extend the Defendant’s house. As such, if the Defendant moves out of the front door or side, then the Defendant’s body or clothes cannot be seen as breaking up to the front door. However, since the Defendant’s photograph (Evidence No. 1) taken out on the date of fire, it is difficult to see that the Defendant’s body or face was kept out of the front door at the time of escape, it is difficult to see that the Defendant made a statement or face of the Defendant from 00 to 100 to 10 to 10 to 10.

6) Also, as seen earlier, there is an empty space between the defendant's office room and the front door door, and there is a strong doubt as to whether the defendant actually left the front door or door door, even in light of the fact that the defendant made a statement that he was unable to memory the fact that he was faced with such shock in this court, as well as that there is a strong doubt as to whether he actually left the front door or side.

1⑦ 피고인은 i ) 경찰에서 제1회 진술조서를 작성할 때에는, 피고인이 잠에서 깨자 강도가 피고인에게 칼을 들이대면서 돈을 요구하였고, 그래서 피고인이 돈이 든 곳을 가리켰더니, 강도가 돈을 가져간 후 피고인을 폭행하고, 피고인의 손과 발을 묶은 후 방에 불을 질렀다고 진술하였으며, 강도가 피고인의 입을 수건으로 막았다거나 피고인의 머리에 옷을 씌웠다는 진술은 하지 않았고, ii ) 경찰에서 진술서를 작성할 때에는, 피고인이 잠에서 깨서 강도에게 누구냐고 묻자 강도가 칼을 들고 돈이나 금붙이를 요구하면서 피고인의 입에 수건을 틀어막고, 손과 발을 묶었으며, 그 후 피고인이 돈이 든 서랍을 가리켰고, 강도가 불을 지르고, 피고인의 머리에 옷을 씌웠다고 진술하였으며, iii ) 경찰에서 피의자신문조서를 작성할 때에는 피고인이 잠에서 깨서 강도에게 누구냐고 말하니 강도가 칼을 대면서 금이나 금붙이를 내놓으라고 했고, 피고인이 돈이 든 서랍을 가리켰으며, 강도가 서랍을 꺼내서 던지는 바람에 피고인이 얼굴을 맞았고 , 그 때 피고인이 소리를 지르니 강도가 피고인의 입을 수건으로 막고, 손과 발을 묶었으며, 강도가 불을 지른 후 피고인이 소리를 치니까 피고인의 머리에 옷을 씌웠다고 진술하였으며, iv ) 검찰에서 진술서를 작성할 때에는, 피고인이 잠에서 깨서 강도에게 누구냐고 말하니, 강도가 수건으로 피고인의 입을 막고, 손과 발을 묶은 후 돈이나 금 붙이를 내놓으라고 하면서 칼을 댔고, 피고인이 서랍장을 가리키자, 강도가 서랍장을 꺼내 던져서 피고인이 얼굴을 맞았고, 그 후 강도가 피고인에게 여름옷을 씌워 놓고 , 불을 질렀다고 진술하였으며, v ) 검찰에서 피의자신문조서를 작성할 때는 대체로 위 진술서와 비슷한 내용으로 진술하였고, 강도가 피고인에게 씌운 옷이 여름옷이라서 옷의 구멍을 통해서도 강도가 불을 지르는 것을 볼 수 있었다고 덧붙였다. 위와 같이 피고인의 진술은 이 사건 화재발생일에 강도와 피고인이 한 행동의 순서에 관하여 계속 바뀌고 있는바, 만약 피고인이 자신의 진술과 같이 강도를 대면하였다면, 당황하고 불안한 심리 상태로 인해 일부 기억의 혼돈이 있을 수는 있겠으나, 그러한 점을 감안하더라도, 피고인이 강도를 처음 만나서 누구냐고 말하자 강도가 피고인의 입을 수건으로 막았는지, 아니면 피고인이 강도가 던진 서랍장이나 그 내용물에 맞아서 소리를 지르자 그때서야 강도가 피고인의 입을 막았는지, 피고인이 옷이 씌워진 채로 강도가 불을 지르는 것을 보았는지 아니면 그 후에 옷이 씌워졌는지 등 잊기 어려운 부분에 있어서까지 피고인의 진술이 변하는 것을 납득하기가 매우 어렵다 .

8) The Defendant himself/herself has habited to gather 50,00 won in freezing and keep it in freezing. ** The money received by the Defendant at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, 60,000 won in freezing with 50,000 won in a month, and 600,000 won in a freezing, and 60,000 won in the above cash prior to the occurrence of the instant fire, and 60,000 won in a safe manner, and 60,000 won in a safe manner, and 60,000 won in a safe manner, and 60,000 won in a safe manner, and 60,000 won in a safe manner and 60,000 won in a safe manner and 60,000 won in a safe manner and 60,000 won in a safe manner and 60,000 won in a safe manner and 60,000 won in a safe manner.

① First, according to the Defendant’s statement as to the Defendant’s revenues, the Defendant was paid KRW 1.6 million per month while working at a hospital funeral hall around the date of the instant fire, and the Defendant was given a rent of KRW 150,000 per month by subleting part of the house leased with KRW 40,000 from the maximum amount of KRW 00 to a female under his name.

Next, according to the health stand, the defendant's statement, and the certified copy of the register submitted by the defense counsel on the property owned by the defendant, the defendant purchased the apartment in * KRW 158 million on August 2007, * the apartment in 100,000,000, and the above apartment was leased with KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,0000 won. Also, according to the content of each financial institution's reply (Evidence No. 79 or 92, the defendant held a deposit that does not amount to KRW 10,00,00,00

In addition, according to the investigation report (Collection of Victims' Goods), it may be recognized that China has discovered 8,500 Sclocks in the freezing room at the instant fire site (as approximately KRW 1.5 million) and precious metals. On the other hand, according to each investigation report (Evidence No. 60,94), the Defendant entered into a contract with 300 million on July 15, 201. * The Defendant paid KRW 30 million on the day it entered into a contract with 200,000,000,000 on the same day, on September 20, 201 through July 20, 201. 30,000,000,000,000 won, which is part of the intermediate payment, should be paid at KRW 1,500,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000 won, which is 3,000,000 won.

Therefore, even if the Defendant’s properties owned at the time of the instant fire were all combined, it did not reach the total amount of obligations that had been incurred at the time, and it was under the circumstances that occurred from around November 201, 2012, the Defendant had to bear interest on the part payments of officetels.

③ Furthermore, according to the investigation report (as to counseling on victim’s dental treatment), the Defendant visited the above dental surgery on November 15, 201 ****, and consulted on the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure. The Defendant, as the cost for the procedure for the above dental surgery is KRW 10 million, did not have only KRW 6 million, was later paid at 4 million, and on November 18, 2011, the Defendant visited the above dental surgery on November 18, 201, was unable to prepare KRW 4 million, while the Defendant was unable to undergo the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the procedure for the treatment of the procedure for the procedure for the treatment of the procedure for the treatment for the treatment of the procedure for the treatment for the treatment of the procedure for the treatment of the procedure for the treatment for the treatment of the procedure for the treatment of the procedure for the treatment. Accordingly, according to the above recognition facts, the Defendant considered the need for the procedure.

④ Finally, according to the health department, each investigation report (Evidence Nos. 43, 44) on the insurance purchased by the Defendant, the Defendant was covered by three insurance companies, including Samsung Fire Co., Ltd. at the time of the instant fire, and the total monthly insurance premium paid was KRW 49,100,00, and as stated in the facts constituting the instant crime, the Defendant was insured at the time of the instant accident, and the Defendant was insured at the time of Samsung Fire Marshall; however, the details of the security amount was recognized as KRW 10,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

In addition, according to the statement and investigation report of 000 (the statement of insurance solicitor) and the defendant's monetary statement (Evidence Nos. 28) around August 201, the defendant visited Samsung Fire Co., Ltd. office and specifically asked about insurance to 000 insurance premium with an insurance policy of insurance he has subscribed to, and asked about the insurance policy to, Samsung Fire Co., Ltd., and among them, whether the insurance policy is currently residing * * at the home of the same location where the insurance policy is applied at the time of a fire, but the address to which the insurance is applied.

** * because it was not the house of this location, 000 had been able to be subject to insurance by changing the domicile, and around November 4, 201, the Defendant asked for insurance by 000 and 000, an employee of Samsung F&M, and asked for insurance by displaying a re-insurance policy, and 00 did not apply to precious metal products. The Defendant was aware that 5 million won was able to be guaranteed within the limit of 5 million won. In addition, the Defendant did not have been aware of the fact that she was aware of the fact that she had been aware of the fact that she had actively consulted about the insurance that she had purchased, such as fire or letters, etc. from November 4, 201 to May 18, 201, the Defendant did not have been aware of the fact that she had been aware of the fact that she had been aware of the fact from the investigation agency to the fact that she had been aware of the fire insurance.

In full view of the above facts, the defendant, after inquiring about the insurance money that can be received at the time of a fire, can receive insurance money up to 45 million won by adding up the amount of KRW 15 million to the amount of the household's damage, the amount of KRW 5 million in the event of a fire in the house that he had resided, and the amount of KRW 30 million in the case of a theft damage, or the amount of KRW 5 million in the case of a lessee's compensation liability, and it is reasonable to view that the fire in this case was committed to stop.

The reason for sentencing is that 30 persons such as the defendant, the maximum 00 persons, etc. use in the multi-family house as a residence. Such crimes are highly likely to cause serious damage to human life, body, property, etc. and the defendant has committed such crimes for the purpose of insurance money. Therefore, the defendant should be punished for severe punishment, since it is highly likely that such crimes have been committed for the purpose of insurance money.

However, given the fact that the fire in this case is relatively early, its damage to property was not significant, and it appears that part of damage was recovered through insurance purchased by the maximum00, and that there was no criminal power against the defendant, etc., the circumstances favorable to the defendant should be considered, and other factors of sentencing, such as the defendant's age, occupation, family relationship, personality and behavior, living environment, etc., as indicated in the trial process of this case, shall be determined as ordered by the disposition, comprehensively considering

jury verdict and sentencing opinion of the jury

1. Do verdict;

- Not guilty: 9 persons: 0 persons;

2. Sentencing Opinion

- Imprisonment for a year and six months: two persons;

- Two years of imprisonment: two persons;

- Imprisonment for a period of two years and six months: one person;

- Three years of imprisonment: one person;

- Imprisonment, one year and six months, three years of suspension of execution; two persons;

- Three years of imprisonment, three years of stay of execution; one person;

Judges Kim Jong-ho

Records of Judges

Judges Kim Yoon-hee