When the Defendant puts hot foods into a restaurant on October 18, 2012 and hot foods within the restaurant, around 12:30 on October 18, 2012, he/she shall provide meals to customers for the safety of customers, and require them to stop away from the restaurant or to stop on the job to customers.

There was a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of danger in advance.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to do so, thereby making it difficult for customers to sit up hot foods (to be 51 years of age) in the middle of the victim C (the 51 year of age), thereby resulting in the Defendant’s loss of images, such as the scam and scamblings, which require approximately three weeks of medical treatment.

2. The facts charged in this part of the judgment cannot be prosecuted against the express will of the victim pursuant to Article 266(2) of the Criminal Act. Since a written agreement was submitted by the victim around December 18, 2012, which was after the institution of the prosecution of this case, stating that the victim would not wish to punish the defendant, the prosecution of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 327(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.