Evaluation of Supreme Court Decision 2022Do16120 Recognizing Individual Liability for Negligent Arson Caused by Joint Negligence in Discarding Cigarette Butts

The Supreme Court decision 2022Do16120, which recognized individual liability for negligent arson caused by joint negligence in discarding cigarette butts, may initially seem like an unremarkable case. However, upon closer examination, it reveals numerous contentious issues, including the distinction between intent and negligence, the differentiation between acts and omissions, the issue of causation, and the establishment of co-perpetration in negligent offenses. The facts of this case, summarized by key points, are as follows: The defendants smoked cigarettes near the recycling station, where recycling boxes were placed along the outer wall of the factory building where they worked. After smoking, Defendant 1 flicked the lit cigarette butt with his fingers, threw it into the recycling station, and left the scene. Defendant 2 extinguished his cigarette by flicking it toward the warehouse and also left. At that time, strong winds were blowing toward the recycling station, which contained paper and other flammable materials, and the distance between the defendants and the recycling station was about 1 to 3 meters. Approximately 3 to 4 minutes after the defendants left, smoke emerged from the recycling station, which was identified as the presumed point of ignition, with no other potential sources of fire identified. The fire then spread to the factory building, which was ultimately destroyed. Based on these facts, the prosecution filed charges against the defendants, alleging co-perpetration of negligent arson under Article 170(1) of the Criminal Act as the primary charge, with an alternative charge alleging that each defendant bore individual liability for negligent arson. Regarding these charges, the first trial court acknowledged the defendants' negligence and sentenced each to a fine of KRW 5 million. The defendants appealed, arguing that there was no substantial evidence to establish causation between their actions and the fire and that it was unclear which specific actions caused the fire, making the case fall under an attempted negligent offense, which is not punishable under the Criminal Act. The appellate court dismissed these arguments, holding that the combined negligence of the defendants caused the fire and affirming the existence of causation. The defendants further appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the appellate court's ruling, affirming both the existence of causation and the defendants' liability for negligence. In this paper, the evaluation focuses on the issues raised in this case, including the distinction between intent and negligence, the differentiation between acts and omissions, the recognition of causation, and the establishment of co-perpetration in negligent offenses.