A. Defendant (1) was aware of the fact that the Defendant fulfilled his duty of care necessary in the course of operating a microphone, and could not expect the victim’s images.

In addition, it is difficult to recognize the relation between the defendant's act and the victim's act by neglecting the management of the victim.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of one million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of the facts, the lower court fully recognizes the facts charged of the instant case that the Defendant sustained injury to the victim due to negligence due to his duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the victim’s incident, such as video, even if the Defendant

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The Defendant was aware of not only the pressure of provisional termination on the skin surface than ordinary people in the process of operating the device with the body of the victim 120 km, but also the fact that the victim was sensitive to the flat heat. As such, the Defendant had a duty of care to look into the state of the victim in the process of operating the device in microfics, and to make the victim individually lest he be exposed to images, etc.

② The Defendant, in accordance with the Micro-based Equipment Management Manual, took measures to prevent the part of the victim’s skin from directly contact with the device despite having to take measures to prevent the part of the victim’s skin from directly contact with the device, so that the part under the part of the victim’s body was in contact with the device directly (the victim was unable to directly contact the floor because it does not cover the part under the relevant part, so that it was difficult for the victim to see the floor to the extent that he was able to receive the part on the relevant part.

(3) The victim's entry into the microphones are hotly damaging to the defendant twice.