업무상과실치사
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principles or misunderstanding of the facts), the Defendant was found to have failed to discover the victim who was slicked in the lecture room at the time of the accident and to find the victim who was slicked in the lecture room, but did not take any particular measures. The Defendant’s negligence is recognized as having a relation with the victim’s acute funeral, which is the cause of the death.
However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.
2. Ex officio determination
A. In the trial of the party, the prosecutor changed the facts charged as stated in the indictment [Attachmentd indictment], and the name of the conjunctive crime and the applicable law “Article 40 subparag. 2 and Article 29 subparag. 3 of the former Child Reinstatement Act (Act No. 10582)” were “Article 40 subparag. 2 and Article 29 subparag. 3 of the former Child Reinstatement Act,” and the ancillary facts [Attachmentd indictment] were added to the same contents as the previous one, and the subject of the trial was changed by this court’s permission.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.
B. However, the above prosecutor's assertion to the effect that even if there are the above reasons for reversal in the judgment of the court below, the relationship between the defendant's negligence and the victim's death is still valid, and this is subject to the judgment of the court of this court, the prosecutor's above assertion and the ancillary
3. Judgment on the primary facts charged
A. In order to recognize a defendant as a crime of occupational negligence and negligence in the line of duty, the legal principle on the organization of issues and burden of proof must be recognized as having a substantial relation between occupational negligence and the victim’s death. Such a fact constitutes a crime element, and the burden of proof is borne by the prosecutor.
Recognition of guilt in a criminal trial shall be made by a judge.