업무상과실치상
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles: The wife suffered from occupational injury on September 17, 2018 is extremely minor so that treatment is not necessary, and there is no difficulty in daily life even if treatment is not provided, and it is difficult to view that the wife constitutes injury as it can be naturally cured with the passage of time.
In addition, according to the attached Table 1 of Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Medical Technicians, etc. Act, a physical clinic may perform duties related to physical therapy, such as physical therapy training and rehabilitation training for physical correction and rehabilitation, and physical therapy conducted by the defendant at the time of the instant case must be accompanied by a considerable exercise of physical force to enhance physical therapy effects.
Therefore, in this case, the victim's superior position is a temporary superior position arising from the defendant's excessive force in the course of treating the victim, which can be recovered in normal conditions without any specific treatment. In full view of all circumstances such as the degree, purpose, motive, repetition and possibility of criticism, and attitude of the victimized child after the occurrence of the case, it constitutes an act of work under Article 20 of the Criminal Act and other acts that do not violate social rules and thus, illegality is dismissed.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On September 17, 2018, the Defendant charged with causing occupational injury is a person who served in C Hospital “D” in Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon as a physical clinic and served as a physical clinic in the “F Welfare Center” in Seo-gu, Daejeon.
At around 16:10 on September 17, 2018, the Defendant was negligent in the course of treating the victim G with her her amb, who is a child (five years of age at that time), while giving physical treatment to the victim G, where her amb, and amb, which stimulates her amb, in the relevant F Welfare Center Soca clinic.