Cigarette Butt Thrown in Someone Else’s Villa... Then He Watched the Fire for 20 Minutes [True Crime]

[The Financial News]"As I was putting the cigarette butt down on the floor, the lit cigarette I was holding rolled away. I quickly stepped on it to put it out, and since I couldn’t see any glow, I thought the fire was out. It was all an accident, not intentional."Around midnight on November 26 last year, A, a 67-year-old man walking drunk along a street in Dobong District, Seoul, entered the shared entrance of a villa. He wanted to sit down for a while and smoke, so he sat on the stairs leading to the basement level. In the basement, various household items such as umbrellas, bicycles, and brooms were piled up. He threw away a cigarette butt that was still lit, and when the nearby items caught fire, he pressed on the flames with his hands and stomped on them before casually walking out of the villa. He left about four minutes after he had gone in.
According to the legal community on the 6th, on January 31 the 13th Criminal Division of the Seoul Northern District Court, presided over by Sanghoon Na, presiding judge of the 13th Criminal Division of the Seoul Northern District Court, sentenced A to two years in prison on charges of arson of an occupied building and residential trespass.
During the trial, A argued that he had not deliberately started the fire. However, the court found that he had at least recognized the possibility of a fire, even if only indirectly. According to the written judgment, A testified that he remembered many items being stored in the villa’s basement, including unfolded cardboard boxes. The court concluded that he was fully aware that throwing a cigarette butt there could easily start a fire. It also ruled that, given that less than four minutes had passed between his entering the villa and the fire breaking out, it was difficult to accept that he could have been certain the fire was completely extinguished when he left. The court further noted that about one minute and 30 seconds after A left, smoke could already be seen rising from the basement, raising doubts about whether he had genuinely tried to put out the fire.
A then engaged in bizarre behavior, watching the firefighting efforts without even making a report. Instead of going straight home after starting the fire, he entered another nearby villa, rested there for about six minutes, and then came back out. For roughly 20 minutes, he quietly observed as multiple ambulances and police cars arrived at the scene and firefighters worked to extinguish the blaze.
He also denied the residential trespass charge, claiming he had merely entered a shared entrance that did not have a proper lock installed. The court rejected this argument, taking into account the nature of the villa. The building was a small multi-family residence with a basement parking area and four above-ground floors, housing a total of eight units and 12 residents. Given these characteristics, the court found that the shared entrance and common stairwell required a relatively high level of protection for residents’ privacy and residential peace, especially compared with open commercial buildings or public institutions. In other words, it could not be regarded as a space where entry by outsiders is generally permitted. The court also explained that the absence of a lock on the shared entrance could not be taken as grounds to conclude that people who do not live there are freely allowed to enter. Although A had no prior convictions for arson, he did have multiple previous convictions resulting in prison and fines.
The court held that arson is a highly dangerous crime and that his culpability was therefore grave. "This was a multi-family residence where many people live, and if the fire had not been extinguished in time, there was a risk of serious loss of life and significant property damage," the panel stated. It added, "He committed the crime while heavily intoxicated and, although he could have called 119 Emergency Services, he neither reported the fire nor turned himself in."
The court went on to say, "This incident caused property damage of about 39.59 million won. The residents felt their lives were in serious danger and are petitioning for a heavy sentence."
At the same time, the court considered several factors in his favor. It noted that A acknowledged the objective facts of the offense, that he did not appear to have acted with a firm, clear intent to commit arson, that fortunately no one was injured, and that the fire did not spread to other homes.
jyseo@fnnews.com Reporter Seo Ji-yoon Reporter