업무상과실치상
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (De facto Error) is merely a provision of a swimming pool, which is an ancillary facility, to the public, while operating a pen. As such, Defendant is not obligated to install safety facilities, such as warning boards, etc., to inform the risk of a water depth and safety accident, or assign safety personnel.
The Defendant, on behalf of the Defendant, notified the Victim E family members who promised H to read the text of the Use Manual containing the phrase “the prohibition of ice ice,” thereby explaining all necessary precautions at the time of using the swimming pool installed in Dpention (hereinafter “instant swimming pool”). As such, the Defendant was not negligent in breach of his duty of care.
Even if the defendant's negligence is recognized, the injury suffered by the victim is due to the whole negligence of the victim who knowingly known the depth, so there is no causal relationship between the defendant's negligence and the injury suffered by the victim.
B. The prosecutor (unfair punishment)’s sentence of the lower court (7 million won of a fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts
A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who operated a Dial pension in Boan City C.
around 14:30 on July 27, 2013, the Defendant provided a guest room and swimming pool to the police, including the victim E (years 24).
In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the lodging business, explains directions for the use of facilities so that guests can use the facilities safely, and since the depth of the swimming pool operated by the defendant is over 1.07m, the head of the facility may face with the floor. Therefore, there is a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of safety accidents in advance by installing safety signs, such as warning boards, etc. to inform the risk of the occurrence of underwater and safety accidents, or by placing safety personnel.
Nevertheless, the defendant neglected this and did not notify the depth of a swimming pool.