2012 High Gohap1473 Dried building and attempted fire prevention (the name of the altered crime and the general goods and fire prevention)

Fixed00 (71*********), food service business

Housing Daegu

Every leapon vessel and every public trial shall be held.

Attorney Lee Chang-woo (Korean)

June 28, 2013

The defendant is innocent.

The summary of the judgment of innocence against the accused shall be published.

1. Facts charged;

On November 29, 2012, at around 05:10 on November 29, 2012, the Defendant, a defendant living together with the defendant in Daegu-gu, brought about a dispute with this Myeongdong-gu with this Myeongdong-gu, put the main body and monitors of the computer in the Myeongdong-gu and this Dogdong-gu on the Myeongdong-gu floor on the Myeongdong-gu floor, and he stored a newspaper site and a stop on the main body of the aforementioned computer, thereby causing public danger by extinguishing the main body and monitors of the aforementioned computer by setting aground.

2. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion

Although the defendant committed an act in the facts charged, it cannot be deemed that the act of the defendant caused public danger, and there was no awareness about the public danger to the defendant.

3. Determination

Article 167 (1) of the Criminal Code provides for punishing a person who causes "public danger by setting fire to a general object" refers to a specific risk of infringing on life, body, or property of an unspecified or large number of unspecified persons (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12947, Jan. 14, 2010).

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, at the time of the Defendant’s setting of fire, only the Defendant was married at the above restaurant, and the Defendant’s failure to move or move to other things except the main body and monitor in which the Defendant left the fire before the arrival of the police officer and the fire-fighting officer, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone constituted a specific danger that the Defendant’s act may infringe on the life, body, or property of an unspecified or many unspecified persons.

If so, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and a summary of the judgment is publicly announced under

The presiding judge, judge and Dong judge

Judges Kim Jae-tae

Judges Lee Jong-soo