Conspiracy to Commit Arson and Preparation of an Offense
Article 3: Mr. Manchanu, Mr. Ruay, and others consumed alcohol at Mr. Man’s residence. During the consumption of alcohol, Mr. Man and the five individuals mentioned above consulted and agreed that the other five would set fire to Mr. Jen’s motorcycle to retaliate against his drug operation at his home. Mr. Man volunteered to conduct this consultation. Mr. Ruay listened passively as he did not understand the preceding events. When the five individuals of Mr. Man’s group returned, they inquired of Mr. Man and Mr. Ruay whether Mr. Ruay knew what they had discussed. Mr. Ruay nodded in agreement with Mr. Man and stated that Mr. Ruay should go to set fire to Mr. Jen’s gasoline-filled motorcycle and travel to Mr. Jen’s house. Due to being in the same province, upon arriving at Mr. Jen’s house, they set fire to Mr. Jen’s vehicle as follows. Mr. Man and the five individuals, along with Mr. Ruay, could be liable for what offenses?
A meeting was held to consult on setting fire to the vehicle. The fact that Mr. Man and the other five individuals conspired to commit an offense as defined in the Penal Code, Section 2 of the Criminal Code, where a sentence of imprisonment for one year or more is stipulated. The act constitutes a crime of premeditation under the Criminal Code. Mr. Man and the other five individuals, Section 210 (1) of the Criminal Code, for the case where Mr. Ruay was instructed to go and set fire to it, and Mr. Ruay took a bottle filled with gasoline and carried it while traveling to Mr. Jen’s house. This action constitutes preparation for committing the offense of arson. Mr. Jen must be punished in the same manner as attempting to commit the offense of arson and there was an effort to set fire to another person’s property as stipulated by the Criminal Code, Section 219 (2). When Mr. Man committed the offense with the intent of premeditation, he was present at the meeting but did not object to the agreement to commit the offense. Mr. Man and the five individuals must be punished according to the provisions for that offense as stipulated in Section 213 (3) of the Criminal Code.
As for Mr. Ruay, he had just gotten to know Mr. Man and the group of Mr. Man at Mr. Man’s residence, although he listened passively to the consultation between Mr. Man and the group, he sat passively because he did not understand the preceding events. This can be considered as having no intention of conspiring as an accomplice or attending a criminal meeting as defined in the Criminal Code, Section 210 and 211 (2). For the case where Mr. Ruay took the gasoline-filled bottle and traveled to it, this was preparation for committing the offense of arson, which must be punished in the same manner as attempting to commit the offense, according to the Criminal Code, Section . Because Mr. Ruay stopped himself, he did not perform the act, therefore the inhibition does not apply to the individual, according to the Criminal Code, Section 82, therefore it has no effect on the liability of the individual (2 points). Section 89