Self-Employed Business Owner Acquitted on Appeal for 'Insurance Fraud Arson and 12 Years on the Run'

"Forensic analysis suggests electrical cause... Insufficient evidence of arson"

A self-employed business owner and an acquaintance, who had been sentenced to prison in the first trial for allegedly setting fire to their own store to claim insurance money, were found not guilty on appeal.

The appellate court determined that the credibility of a recorded conversation, which had been considered a smoking gun in the investigation, was questionable. It also judged that the fire was likely caused by electrical factors such as a short circuit or ground fault due to a typhoon, rather than arson.

On May 27, the Criminal Division 1 of the Gwangju High Court (Presiding Judge Kim Jin-hwan) overturned the original verdict and acquitted both the self-employed business owner, Mr. A, and his acquaintance, Mr. B, who were indicted on charges of arson of an inhabited building and had been sentenced in the first trial to five years and three years in prison, respectively.

Exterior view of Gwangju High Court.

Mr. A was indicted on charges of conspiring with Mr. B to deliberately set fire to a parts dealership he operated in Jangheung, South Jeolla Province, between the night of August 28 and the early morning of August 29, 2012, resulting in the complete destruction of a 462-square-meter building.

At the time, investigators alleged that Mr. A left a candle burning in the dealership's warehouse and went out, and that Mr. B, who had a debt relationship with Mr. A, set the fire using flammable materials. Initially, the case was closed as a simple fire, and Mr. A received insurance compensation amounting to several hundred million won. However, about a year later, an arson investigation was reopened based on a recorded conversation submitted by a third party.

In particular, Mr. A fled during an investigation for another crime and remained on the run for about 12 years before being belatedly indicted. The first trial court found all charges guilty based on the recording and Mr. A's confession, sentencing both defendants to prison.

However, the appellate court reached a different conclusion. The court found that the credibility of the recording, which was a key piece of evidence for guilt, as well as the courtroom testimony, was questionable.

The appellate court stated, "The third party who recorded a conversation with Mr. A about the fire reported the insurance fraud but was passive in submitting supporting evidence," and pointed out, "It is difficult to conclude that Mr. A's statements in the recording were made voluntarily and without the possibility of fabrication or undue influence."

The court also cited objective findings from the fire investigation as grounds for acquittal. The court noted, "The scene investigation report stated that the fire was presumed to be caused by an electrical factor, and given that there were several power outages in the area due to a typhoon right before the fire, the possibility of a short circuit or ground fault cannot be ruled out." The court also highlighted that no flammable materials were found at the scene and that there was no evidence of purchasing candles or flammable substances.

The court further stated, "Given that Mr. A locked the doors before and after the fire and asked another acquaintance to remove fixtures, it appears that Mr. A did not foresee the fire." The court concluded, "It cannot be definitively determined that Mr. A and Mr. B conspired to commit arson merely because of their friendship and phone calls. The evidence submitted by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the crime."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.