logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2015.09.21 2015고단1093
업무상과실치상
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who has served as a guardian of “D” in Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul.

At around 20:30 on December 7, 2014, the Defendant: (a) committed an excessive act, such as continuing refusal and noise, in one room within the above member; (b) around 13:40 on the same day, the Defendant was hospitalized in the victim E (the age of 13) who was hospitalized in the name of sick person, such as ADHD (excess disorder); (c) and (d) the victim was forced to be off from the Pacific.

In case of mental unstable and excessive behavior of a patient who is in a state of interest, the patient is highly likely to sustain an injury. Therefore, there is a duty of care to ensure that the patient will not be injured by stabilizing patients effectively and rapidly by mobilization of sufficient personnel.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected to control the victim on his own without the assistance of other employees, and caused injury to the victim, such as the victim's elbow in the process of taking the victim's body forcibly with the defendant's body in order to force the victim's body, and the victim's elbow part was shocked for about three weeks of treatment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning F;

1. A written diagnosis of injury;

1. Damage photographs;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint;

1. Article 268 of the Criminal Act and Article 268 of the same Act concerning the crime, selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Although the Defendant’s crime of this case, which is at the location of protecting the victim for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, should be criticized, considering the fact that the Defendant has no record of crime, and is against the Defendant.

arrow