Man in His 60s Sentenced to Prison for Setting Another Fire Just One Day After Release for Attempted Arson

Arson at Former Residence Officetel
Claims "I Don't Remember Because I Was Drunk"

A man in his 60s who set a fire just one day after being released from prison for attempted arson has been sentenced to prison.

Uijeongbu Officetel Fire. Uijeongbu Fire Station

According to the legal community on September 28, the 13th Criminal Division of the Uijeongbu District Court (Presiding Judge Oh Yoonkyung) recently sentenced a man in his 60s, identified as A, to three years in prison for arson of an inhabited structure.

Previously, A was indicted and detained on charges of setting fire to the piloti parking lot on the first floor of an officetel in Uijeongbu-dong, Uijeongbu City, at around 3:50 a.m. on May 23. As a result of the fire, about 75 residents evacuated, during which three people either fell or suffered burns and required hospital treatment. In addition, 20 people inhaled smoke, and seven cars, one motorcycle, and the exterior wall of the building were damaged by the fire. Fortunately, there were no serious injuries.

According to the police investigation, A had been released from prison the previous day after serving time for attempted arson and was found to have no fixed residence. He stated, "I don't remember because I was drunk." The officetel where the fire broke out was confirmed to be a place where he had previously lived.

The court stated, "Arson is a crime that threatens public safety and peace, and it carries a high risk of causing significant harm to the lives and property of innocent people. The defendant, while intoxicated and without any particular reason, set fire to a building where he used to live. Given the circumstances and method of the crime, as well as the extent of the damage, his culpability is very grave." The court added, "The defendant has multiple prior convictions, including for violent and sexual offenses, and has previously served prison sentences and received criminal punishment. In particular, he committed this crime again during his repeat offender period, which makes his actions highly blameworthy. Significant financial damage was caused, yet the defendant made no effort to restore the damage and did not receive forgiveness from the victims."