Do not think a minor fault is no big deal; electrical fires can also lead to criminal penalties.
[2] Compiled from: Liaoshen Evening News
Recently, the "SR International New City December 2 Fire Case" in Shenyang, Liaoning Province, was formally pronounced: the defendant Liu was convicted of the crime of negligently causing a fire and sentenced to four years of fixed-term imprisonment.
Case review
At 9 p.m. on December 2, 2019, Liu returned to his room after work and used an electric kettle plugged into a power strip to boil water. Liu then went into the bathroom to take a shower, and the room’s air switch tripped. Without checking the cause of the trip, Liu directly reset the switch, which caused the power strip’s cord to malfunction and ignite surrounding combustibles, starting a fire.
The fire caused damage to the homes of 64 households in the building. According to the appraisal by the Price Certification Center of Hunnan District, Shenyang City, the fire resulted in a total direct economic loss of over RMB 1.07 million.
On September 10, 2020, the People's Procuratorate of Hunnan District, Shenyang City, accused the defendant Liu XX of the crime of negligently causing a fire and initiated a public prosecution with the People's Court of Hunnan District, Shenyang City. The court held a public hearing to try the case.
Defense counsel for Liu stated that the accident investigation determined the fire was caused by a fault in the power cord of the power strip used by Liu, which ignited surrounding combustibles and led to the fire. Since it was a power cord fault, Liu should not be fully blamed; the apartment manager also has a responsibility to inspect the safety of related power sources and sockets.
The lawyer also said that the defendant Liu has minimal subjective malice, a good attitude toward admitting guilt, is a first-time and occasional offender, and has voluntarily surrendered, hoping the court will impose a lighter sentence.
[1] Court Opinion
The People's Court of Hunnan District, Shenyang City held that the defendant Liu Moumou caused a fire due to negligence, resulting in significant losses to public and private property. His act constituted the crime of negligently causing a fire, and he should bear criminal responsibility according to law. In view of the fact that the defendant Liu Moumou had the circumstance of voluntary surrender, he should be given a lighter punishment according to law. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 115 and paragraph 1 of Article 67 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the first-instance judgment is as follows: the defendant Liu Moumou is guilty of the crime of negligently causing a fire and is sentenced to a fixed-term imprisonment of 4 years.
"Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China"
Article 115 [Arson Crime] [Breaching Dikes Crime] [Explosion Crime] [Crime of Spreading Dangerous Substances] [Crime of Endangering Public Security by Dangerous Means]
Whoever commits arson, breaches dikes, causes explosions, spreads poisonous, radioactive, or infectious disease pathogens, or uses other dangerous methods that cause serious injury or death to others or significant damage to public or private property shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than ten years, life imprisonment, or death.
Article 67 [Voluntary Surrender]
Surrender voluntarily after committing a crime and truthfully confess one's own crimes constitutes voluntary surrender. Criminals who voluntarily surrender may be given a lighter or mitigated punishment. Among them, those whose crimes are relatively minor may be exempted from punishment.
[1] The author's perspective
It is worth noting that this case involves the crime of negligent arson, not the crime of intentional arson. Both are acts that endanger public safety related to fires and infringe upon social public safety. However, the most obvious difference between the two is that negligent arson is a negligent crime, while intentional arson involves intent.
Thus, intentional arson is more egregious in terms of subjective culpability than negligent arson. Therefore, intentional arson does not require the serious consequence of causing serious injury, death, or significant damage to public or private property as a constitutive element; it only requires that the act of setting fire is sufficient to endanger public safety. In contrast, negligent arson requires the occurrence of such serious consequences. Additionally, intentional arson has distinctions between completed and attempted offenses. Negligent arson, being a negligent crime, requires serious consequences as a legal element and does not involve attempted offenses.
Firefighting facilities are ubiquitous, and safety knowledge is constantly heard, yet incidents of tragedies caused by improper operations occur frequently in daily life. Never assume that unintentional actions are not crimes; a small oversight leading to a fire can result in extremely painful lessons.
