Housing, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City Sovidong-ro

Seoul Central District Court Decision 200

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 120 hours.

From June 1, 2015 to January 18, 2016, the Defendant is a person working for ○com Co., Ltd. (the representative: ○○○) as an employee belonging to ○○○○○, and from July 10, 2015, the Defendant was a person who caused the head of the swimming pool of “○○ Work-As-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-Se-S-Se-Se-S-Se-S-S-S

The above so-called so-called "low pool" was installed in 7 swimmings for young children with 30cm in depth, 70cm in depth, 1m and 1.2m in depth, and the above company has established separate conditions for entry in order to prevent accidents in front, so that access can be made available at least 1.2m in depth and 1.2m in height of the yellow pool with 1m in depth, and where the height falls short of 1.2m in depth, access was made only to be accompanied by his guardian. On August 9, 2015, the steel pool was installed in a swimming pool with onem in depth so that many people at the time of the accident do not have access to it, and the entrance and exit of the victim was used or made out of the entrance of the above 4m in order not to have access to it.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so on August 9, 2015: around 25, 2015: 10: (a) did not assign safety personnel to the vicinity of the bridge of the entrance entrance of the river pool of the depth of 1m; and (b) did not limit the entry of the victim subject to the restriction on the entrance of the river pool by using the above bridge; and (c) caused the victim to go away from the entrance guidance of the river pool of the Mixed.

On August 15, 2015, at around 08:10, the Defendant caused the victim to die of low oxygen brain damage and cerebral cerebral cerebral Bribery at the Nam-dong Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu 774-gil 21, Nam-dong.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The protocol of interrogation of the police on Kim Il-chul

1. Each police protocol on new ○○, Kim Il-young, Kim Il-○, and Kim Il-○

1. Report on internal investigation (such as securing of CCTV images, etc.), details of FAX transmission (a copy of a death diagnosis, etc.), and the details thereof;

A copy of the attached death certificate and written opinion, report on internal investigation (the oral statement, etc. of the doctor in charge of the route hospital) and its report

(C) photographs, internal investigation reports (such as the verification of CCTV images), video CDs, attached to the

1. Symology, ○○ Speedmphographic photo;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 268 (Selection of Imprisonment without prison labor)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (General Conditions favorable to the Reasons for Sentencing as follows)

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

Reasons for sentencing

In the case of a swimming pool used by the general public, the installer or manager of a swimming pool shall be obliged to restrict the use of the swimming pool in accordance with the safety standards taking into account the depth of the water, the age of the user, the extension of the water, etc. and to ensure the safe use of the swimming pool by users.

However, even if a person who installs or manages a swimming pool prepares the criteria for restrictions on use in accordance with such safety standards, it cannot be readily concluded that users using the swimming pool have fulfilled their duty of care in the course of business by informing users of such restrictions in general and abstract manner and assigning safety personnel inside the swimming pool. In fact, in addition to notifying each individual of such restrictions so as to enable them to know such restrictions on use, it can be deemed that users (such as children below a certain age, the aged or audio-visually handicapped persons, etc.) who have no knowledge of the meaning of the restrictions on use in cases where they are anticipated to use the swimming pool without such knowledge, and if such situation occurs, they should immediately point out such violations so as not to cause a safety accident by quickly eliminating the safety risks caused by such violation, or by promptly eliminating the safety risks caused by such violation.

○○ Construction Co., Ltd. at the time of the instant accident (hereinafter referred to as “the swimming pool”) failed to carry out the instant swimming pool at the time of the instant accident, or failed to carry out the instant swimming pool at the time of the instant accident, and met the requirements for permission required by the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and provided general necessary safety education to those who are in need of safety after placing the swimming pool at the time of the instant accident. However, the safety personnel at the time of the instant accident were assigned only one person on the upper side and lower side of the four meters of the date of the instant accident. However, the safety personnel at the time of the instant accident were not allowed to enter the instant swimming pool, and the victim was not allowed to take necessary safety measures such as the removal of the swimming pool at the time of the instant accident, and the victim was not allowed to take necessary safety measures such as the removal of the swimming pool at the time of the instant accident, without being accompanied by the guardian at the time of the instant accident, and the victim was not allowed to take other safety measures such as the removal of the body.

Therefore, the instant accident is a human resources caused by the occupational negligence of the officers and employees of the instant swimming pool, who are responsible for the management of the instant swimming pool, including the safety of the users, including the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant, who is the responsible person, needs to be held responsible corresponding to the result.

On the other hand, however, the victim was only four years of age and was required to be protected by his guardian at all times. However, although his mother, etc. was within the swimming pool of this case, he did not interfere with the victim's behavior and did not properly confirm his whereabouts, and the victim did not cause serious injury to brain and eventually caused the death. Thus, the above mistake of the victim's mother's father and mother, etc. cannot be seen as an important cause for the occurrence of the accident of this case and the result of the serious accident of this case, and therefore all responsibility for the death of the victim cannot be charged to the defendant for the defendant.

In addition, the above circumstances are that the defendant has no criminal power, and the operation of the swimming pool of this case has been virtually suspended and has been de facto suspended due to the accident of this case, and the defendant is likely to have reached an agreement with the bereaved family members of the victim or deposit the amount of damage for the victim and his/her bereaved family members, etc. However, the recovery of the damage suffered by the victim and his/her bereaved family members seems to have the nature to be resolved by civil and other civil methods, such as civil litigation, ultimately, the restoration of the damage suffered by the victim and his/her bereaved family members seems to have the nature to be resolved by the victim's and his/her bereaved family members. The defendant took the name of his/her deceased person by breaking his/her mistake, and other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character, occupation, environment, family relationship, etc