Article 171 of the Criminal Act: Gross Negligence

Gross negligence refers to a case in which an actor could be aware of the occurrence of the result by extremely minor attention, but it is difficult to recognize it as a father's negligence. The distinction between the past room and the past room is a matter to be determined in consideration of social norms in a concrete case, and the quantity of the defendant's use can continue to exist for about three hours as a new product. There is only unconstitutional waste in the vicinity of the candlelight in the box in the warehouse, and there was no gasoline and other inflammable substances, and there was no gasoline and other inflammable substances, and there was no gasoline and grains after about 30 minutes of the death, and there was no candlelight and the rice used for the death will be put into the stalle and closed the warehouse without setting up it. Accordingly, the defendant recognized in the above case is nothing more than the past room.

Article 171 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Jinju support in the first instance, Gwangju High Court in the second instance, etc.

The so-called gross negligence is very minor due to the fact that the actor was able to recognize the occurrence of the result, and the distinction of gross negligence is the issue to be determined in consideration of social norms in specific cases. According to the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below judged that the defendant's initial construction was gross negligence, putting him in the box inside the original warehouse at the time of the shop, and it was a serious negligence that the defendant's initial construction was not carried out. However, according to the records, the two sides used by the defendant were new goods, and the warehouse had no strong human capacity such as gasoline, etc. inside the warehouse, and the warehouse was processed near the candlelight, and the warehouse was put in a box, which was 30 minutes after the completion of the death, and that it was no gross negligence, and it is obvious that the defendant's gross negligence was no more than 10 minutes after the passage of the warehouse and it was set up in the so-called can be seen that the defendant's gross negligence was no more than 3 hours after the passage of the warehouse.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)