업무상과실치상
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the relevant evidence in light of the gist of the grounds for appeal, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, an engineer of the train, was obliged to perform occupational duties to manipulate the victim, who was able to load an embryo with a cargo vehicle, by examining whether the victim was in a safe position, as seen above, and that the Defendant was negligent in manipulating the vehicle to cause injury to the victim.
The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of injury by occupational negligence.
2. Determination
A. The court below held that ① the Defendant’s operation at the site of the instant accident carried a train in which the Defendant loaded an embryo for giving and receiving embryos into the truck of the victim; ② the Defendant’s operation was carried out in a way that the upper part of the transportation equipment installed in the fore toe toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe toe to the fore toe toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore toe to the fore to.