However, 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 40 hours.

At around 15:00 on September 26, 2016, the Defendant collected the horse bridge together with the victim in the camping located in the OO in the Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gun.

Since the horse punishment may result in the risk of rocketing life while taking horse punishment due to strong attack, there was a duty of care to take measures such as preventing access to the horse punishment in preparation for the danger of being exposed to others when taking the horse punishment, or taking appropriate measures to prevent shocks in the horse punishment in order to prevent the shocks from being exposed to the danger of being exposed to others.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was aware that the victim was seated far away from about 20 meters from the horse pool without a protective gear, but the Defendant saw the upper part of the part of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the Geman branch of the Geman branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the Geman branch of the Geman branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch of the saw branch, caused the victim to attack the victim who was in the vicinity of the saw branch of the

Summary of Evidence

1. Examination of a suspect of newO by the prosecution;

1. An interrogation protocol of a police officer concerning a newO;

1. Statement of statement to the police authorityO;

1. On the 1st day of each investigation report (Evidence List No. 6, 7, 11), the written diagnosis of death and the argument of the defendant and the defense counsel, the summary of the argument asserted that the defendant and the defense counsel did not violate the defendant's duty of care for the death of the victim, and that the victim could not have predicted the death of the victim. In other words, the defendant was paying attention to the victim's death far away from the terminal, did not have employed the victim, and did not think that the victim was dead.

2. Determination

A. First, according to each of the above evidence, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① The Defendant had been experienced and experienced in gathering horses several times during the recent years. On the other hand, the victim was the first time between the Defendant and the gathering site of the horse pool.

② The Defendant used the protective gear separately, and carried the protective gear at the gathering site. However, the victim did not have any protective gear, and the Defendant did not have any necessary protective gear against the victim.

③ NewO, when taking a horse punishment with the Defendant, made a statement to the effect that it is safe if the Defendant did not wear a protective gear at a distance of 50 meters. He also made a statement to the effect that his participation in gathering a horse punishment is far away. However, the Defendant had the victim be located at a place less than 20 meters far away from 50 meters.

④ As above, even though the victim was located within the range of the horse and the danger, the Defendant had been well aware of the saws of the Gemanium, and the Gemanium fells below the Gemanium and led the victim in the vicinity of the horse.

⑤ The victim was rocketing to the extent that she could not see the eye, and died following the day.

B. We examine the above facts in light of the above facts.

A defendant who has much experience in collecting horse booms has a duty of care to properly notify the victim who has no experience in collecting horse booms, or to move out of the appropriate separation distance if the victim is at a location lower than the appropriate separation distance. In addition, if the victim desires to be more than the appropriate separation distance, he/she has a duty of care to wear a protective gear.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not properly inform the victim of the appropriate separation distance, and did not take measures so that the victim is far as more closer than the appropriate separation distance. The Defendant did not allow the victim to wear protective gear than the appropriate separation distance. The Defendant did not allow the victim, who did not wear any protective gear, to have the victim wear the protective gear, so that the horse booms down down under the Ahhsle where the horse booms that the victim would have been able to get the horse boom in the nearest situation. The Defendant breached his duty of care.

Meanwhile, it is generally known that in a case where the horse punishment house was attacked and falls into a lower place than a lower one’s own high place, the horse punishment in that place appears to have an aggressive tendency, such as the rocketing, etc., and that a rocketing person may die. The Defendant was also likely to have the victim’s death.

3. Sub-resolution:

Ultimately, the criminal facts of the judgment can be recognized, since the defendant violated his duty of care and caused the victim's death and was foreseeable. We do not accept the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 267 of the Criminal Code; 1. Article 62 (1) of the Suspension of Execution Criminal Code; Article 62-2 of the Social Service Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Punishment] Class 1 (Special Punishment for Death): Reduction element for the victim's negligence (the range of recommending punishment) where there is a substantial fault in the occurrence of an accident or the expansion of damage (the scope of recommending punishment), reduction area, imprisonment without prison labor for not less than one month but not more than eight months, and the result of the decision-making of sentence is heavy. The victim's bereaved family members are punished for the defendant. The same is disadvantageous to the victim.

However, even if the victim was first at the place of the horse collection, it is widely known that, as seen earlier, if close to the place of the horse collection without any protective gear, damage may have been caused by the aggressive tendency of the horse punishment. As such, the victim has to pay attention to the victim by making a distance far away or requesting the defendant to wear protective gear. Furthermore, there is no evidence to deem that the victim forced the victim to leave the place of detention, or that the victim would have been located far away from the place of the horse collection. The defendant does not have the same criminal record.

The sentence shall be determined in the same manner as the above and other factors of sentencing specified in the arguments and records of the case as the disposition.

Judges Kang Young-chul