업무상과실치상
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The gist of the grounds of appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) is as follows: (a) the victim was negligent in the course of his/her duties or sustained injury by the victim in light of the following: (b) the victim’s statement on the background of the accident was inconsistent; and (c) the victim’s written diagnosis submitted by the victim was continuously hospitalized prior to the occurrence of the instant accident; and (d) the victim was negligent in performing duties
shall not be deemed to exist.
Therefore, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which provides the principle of free evaluation of evidence, provides that the probative value of evidence shall be based on the free evaluation of a judge is appropriate for the discovery of substantial truth. As such, a fact-finding judge should consider the perception obtained in the trial proceedings and the examined evidence without regard to the recognition of facts.
In addition, the judge's decision on the probative value of one evidence should be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be such that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it does not require any possible doubt, and there is probative value.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, rejection by causing a suspicion without reasonable grounds goes beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and thus, is not permissible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do8153, Dec. 23, 2010; 2017Do2567, Jun. 29, 2017). (b) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, the Defendant, as a person responsible for safety management at the construction site of this case, was negligent in performing his duty of care to prevent safety accidents and suffered injury to the victim.
It is reasonable to view it.
Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.
(1) The victim shall commence the investigation into the original court.