The court shall order the defendant to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

At around 20:30 on November 1, 2013, the Defendant, as an individual instructor, directed ice rinking players, such as victims E (V, 13 years old), etc. in the Gyeonggi E-si in November 2013.

The Defendant, as an ice printing instructor, had a duty of care to prevent safety accidents in advance by taking appropriate measures, such as providing the players with care to the extent of their physical flexibility, and providing education to the players at the time of education on the ground when the floor is sleeped, and by taking appropriate measures, such as immediately suspending education at the time when the players appeal for the pain. Nevertheless, on the ground that the victim’s self-determination needs to be corrected without complying with this, the Defendant continued to cross the victim’s arms on the ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice, and repeated action to see the victim’s ice ice ice ice ice ice, even though the victim complained of the pain and requested suspension of training.

Accordingly, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as salt, tension, etc. of the shouldered unit, which requires approximately three weeks of medical treatment, by such negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the witness F in the court;

1. Each police statement of E;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. Each video CD;

1. Each photograph;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 266(1) of the Criminal Act; Selection of fines

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

The following circumstances are revealed according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court.

① 당시 상황을 촬영한 빙상장 CCTV 영상에 의하면, 피고인이 피해자의 팔을 뒤쪽에서 잡아당겨 피해자가 엉덩방아를 찧듯이 중심을 잃고 뒤로(피고인이 있는 방향으로) 미끄러지는 것을 확인할 수 있다(순번 24번 CD 파일명 B3-22, 영상의 화질이 좋지 않고 피고인과 피해자가 너무 멀리 있어서 판별이 어렵기는 하나 여러 차례 반복해서 보면 피해자가 외부적인 힘으로 뒤로 중심을 잃고 미끄러졌다는 정도는 판별이 가능한 것으로 보인다).

② The Defendant also presented as reference material the images of the CCTV, alleging that he/she took about about 10 seconds from the victim’s behind and brought about about about 10 seconds. However, according to the CCTV images as seen earlier, if the Defendant returned back to the victim’s order and subsequently gets back to the center of the victim, and then 1/2 second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second second, and if the Defendant was admitted to her arms in the intensity and method of the world to the extent of his/her assertion or reproduction, it is not easy for the victim to be able to lose her center in the future. ③ According to the victim’s statement, according to the victim’s statement, the Defendant at the time she saw that the Defendant her “nicked” and dried up, dried up and dried both arms (Evidence No.

④ After correcting the victim’s attitude at the police station, the Defendant stated that the victim complained of the victim’s pain, but the other players thought the victim to be aware of it (Evidence 29). In light of these statements, it appears that the Defendant was unable to take appropriate measures, such as the victim’s appeal for pain, and the immediate suspension of education, at the time. On the five day, the victim complained of the pain and received the treatment by an emergency room, and was treated by an emergency room on the one hand, and was treated by an pain on the other and June 201, and the victim was treated by an emergency room on the other day. In addition, around three weeks of medical treatment, the victim was suffering from injury, such as the gate’s salt, tension, and tension, etc.

In light of these circumstances, the Defendant may be acknowledged to have suffered injury from a victim by violating the duty of care as stated in its reasoning. In addition, in light of the degree of violation of the duty of care and the degree of injury, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s act constitutes an ordinary guidance act recognized as reasonable in society.