과실치상
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
(b) Summary of the grounds for appeal;
A. The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, although it cannot be deemed that the victims had a duty of care to prevent them from entering the building, because they could not expect the victims from entering the building.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is a person who engages in the removal of a building, and the victim C and the victim D are employees of “E” to lend various materials, such as pipes and cleans, to install a screen for the removal building.
As a person responsible for the removal of the building located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”), the Defendant was aware of the fact that there was an old locked (a 150cc wide * 80cc high 2.8m high 2.8m high hereinafter referred to as the “instant ice”) on the first floor of the removed building. In such a case, there was a duty of care to have safety devices installed to prevent the human father and many unspecified people from falling up with the old ices at the site of removal.
Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and did not take any measure, and around 09:30 on February 9, 2015, the Defendant caused the victims at the scene to suffer injury in the treatment days, such as the Pille, embelle, embelle, vertebra, spine pressure, etc., by causing the victims who have fallen in the Gu, and caused the victims to suffer injury in the treatment days to collect remaining materials, such as pipes, to the Fransh building in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.
B. The lower court determined that the victims found the pipes of the instant building and did not appear to connect the pipes, and entered the building of the instant case. The Defendant, who was in charge of the removal of the instant building, was in charge of the construction of the removal of the instant building, was in charge of I, and was in charge of the construction of the labing installation work.