Do not think a minor fault is no big deal; electrical fires can also lead to criminal penalties.
[2] Compiled from: Liaoshen Evening News
[3] Recently, the "SR International New City 12·2 Fire Case" in Shenyang City, Liaoning Province was officially sentenced: the defendant Liu Moumou was convicted of negligently causing a fire and sentenced to 4 years in prison.
Case review
[4] At 9 p.m. on December 2, 2019, Liu Moumou returned to his room after work and used an electric kettle connected to a power strip to boil water. Liu entered the bathroom to shower, and the room's circuit breaker tripped. Without checking the cause of the trip, Liu directly reset the switch, causing a fault in the power strip's cord that ignited nearby combustibles, leading to a fire.
[5] The fire affected 64 households in the building. According to an appraisal by the Shenyang Hunnan District Price Certification Center, the fire caused direct economic losses totaling over 1.07 million RMB.
[6] On September 10, 2020, the Shenyang Hunnan District People's Procuratorate charged the defendant Liu Moumou with negligently causing a fire and filed a public prosecution with the Shenyang Hunnan District People's Court, which held a public trial.
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 Shenyang Hunnan District People's Court held that the defendant Liu caused a fire through negligence, resulting in significant damage to public and private property, constituting the crime of negligent arson and should bear criminal responsibility according to law. Given that the defendant Liu voluntarily surrendered, a lighter sentence should be imposed according to law. In accordance with Article 115, Paragraph 2, and Article 67, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the first-instance judgment is as follows: The defendant Liu is guilty of negligent arson and is sentenced to four years in prison.
"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.
