Facts
In this case, it was about a fire caused by the negligence of the appellant. The Cantonal Court of St. Gallen had convicted the appellant for damaging another person under Article 222(1) of the Swiss Criminal Code. The appellant then filed a nullity appeal with the Federal Supreme Court.
The Federal Supreme Court had to clarify whether the fact that the object of the fire was insured is essential for the applicability of Articles 221 and 222 of the Swiss Criminal Code. It concluded that the insurance benefit cannot be considered as damage within the meaning of these provisions. Practical considerations also do not suggest a different view.
However, the Federal Supreme Court recognized that the reduction in value of a pledge caused by the fire can be considered as "damage to another" to the detriment of the pledgee. However, this was not the case in the present case, as the building damage of around 3,000 Swiss francs did not jeopardize the claims of the mortgage creditors.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court therefore quashed the judgment of the Cantonal Court and remanded the case to the lower instance for the acquittal of the appellant.
The Federal Supreme Court clarified that the fact that a fire object is insured is irrelevant for the applicability of Articles 221 and 222 of…