When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be the defendant for the period converted 100,000 won into one day.

shall be confined in a workhouse.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine.

The defendant is a person who is responsible for the overall safety management of building and building expenses of the same gender party while working as a secretary of the Asung Party in Jeju.

The depth of (n) water supply and distribution equipment (Dry Area, hereinafter referred to as “Exchange equipment”) established on the second floor on the road parking lot at the above Sung-party 2 level has reached 3.1 meters, and the above sex parties have a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of an accident by setting up steel cover covering the above exchange equipment, setting up a warning of the fall risk, preventing children’s access, and conducting safety inspection at the regular level. In such a case, the Defendant, who is responsible for the safety management of the sexual parties, has a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of an accident by carrying out safety inspection at the regular level.

Nevertheless, from around 18:20 on August 2, 2014 to around 18:30 on the same day, the Defendant neglected to perform the above duty of care and did not install a steel cover covering device, and did not install a warning phrase or safety gate, etc. to suggest access, and the victim's senior 00 (V, 7 years old) was due to occupational negligence, which did not perform safety inspection on the said ventilation section at all, and the victim's senior string (V, 7 years old) committed the act of putting the said steel cover cover cover out by hand with one male's own name, and fell into the above 3.1 meter deep mpher floor.

As a result, the above victim suffered injury, such as diversification of bones, requiring medical treatment for about 12 weeks, etc.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime: Article 268 of the Criminal Act;

1. Detention at a workhouse: Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Provisional payment order: Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

[In the case of negligence, under individual circumstances, whether an actor is able to take certain specific measures to avoid the outcome, under which individual circumstances may be imposed on an actor, and whether such measures may be taken. The grounds for recognizing the duty of care include not only the cases stipulated in statutes, but also necessary for contract and custom, and it cannot be said that there is no negligence in the crime of occupational negligence even if the actor fulfilled the duty of care stipulated in laws and regulations. This does not constitute a crime of occupational negligence. In this case, even if the place where the occurrence of this case occurred is located in a lot of land, but it is installed in a place where the ventilation of this case does not fall on the road, and it is reasonable to see that the above road is located in a 1st century, and that it is easy for the Defendant to have access only after the boundary of the road, or there is no obstacle or obstacle to the construction of the wall, etc. < Amended by Act No. 1068, Mar. 1, 2008>

Reasons for sentencing

Although the victim suffered serious injury, it cannot be deemed that there is a significant portion of the victim's responsibility. The defendant's primary crime without any criminal power, and the case is basically an excessive criminal punishment as a negligent crime, and the other direction-setting solution should be considered. The punishment shall be determined by taking into account all other similar cases' equity in sentencing, background leading up to the occurrence of the accident, circumstances after the accident, the defendant's occupation, character and conduct, age, family relationship, etc.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.