(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.6.22.선고 2016노66 판결

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, the defendant shall be the defendant for the period calculated by converting one million won into one day.

shall be confined in a workhouse.

The defendant shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine by provisional payment.

Reasons

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below acquitted the defendant of the death by occupational negligence, which is the primary charge of this case, although the defendant could sufficiently be recognized that the victim died by negligence while he had a knee-knee-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne-kne

2. Determination

A. Ex officio determination

In the trial of the prosecution, the prosecutor has maintained the facts charged as to the occupational injury of this case as the primary facts charged, and the name of the crime was "the person causing the occupational injury" and the court applied for the amendment of the indictment added to the ancillary facts charged as follows, and the judgment of the court below was changed by permitting it, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any longer. However, even though there are the above reasons for reversal of the right, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of the court of this case.

【Additional Facts Concerning the Aggravated Punishment】

The Defendant is a physical clinic at ○○ Hospital located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, ○○○○○. The Defendant around November 14, 2013:0: around 00, at the water treatment room located in the first floor of the above ○○ Hospital, he was in charge of the physical therapy for the victim’s salary ○ (the age of 94). The victim was in charge of the physical therapy due to cerebral color, which makes it difficult for the victim to walk up, and there was an early dementia symptoms due to the old age. In such a case, the person who is in charge of physical therapy for the patient on the beds for medical use, who is in charge of the physical therapy for the patient on the part of the patient, has a duty of care to prevent an occupational accident of the patient.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and attached the low-frequency therapy scare to the victim’s knee, and did not open the falling prevention day, and neglected the victim, thereby causing injury to the victim, such as the fele egale, etc., requiring the treatment of another patient, while leaving the knee for the fall prevention.

B. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

Examining the judgment of the court below closely after comparison with the records, even if the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, even if the accident of this case was caused by the defendant's negligence, it is difficult to acknowledge a proximate causal relationship between the accident of this case and the death of the victim, the court below's decision that acquitted the defendant of the facts charged by occupational negligence on the ground that it is reasonable in light of the direct cause of the victim's death, the interval between the accident of this case and the death of the victim, etc., and there is no error of law of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the prosecutor. Accordingly, the prosecutor's above assertion

3. Conclusion

Although the appeal by the prosecutor is without merit, the judgment of the court below is justified for the above reasons for reversal of authority.

The judgment of the court below shall be reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Transmission Act, and the judgment shall be again determined as follows after pleading:

[Judgment to be used again]

Criminal facts

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements by the defendant in part;

1. Legal statement of the witness ○○○;

1. Each police protocol on Kim ○○, Ma○○, and Kim Il-young’s statement

1. Each investigation report (to submit reference materials for the head of the ○○○○○ Hospital, and to hear statements from a witness Kim Mack's phone);

1. A copy of a medical certificate of injury or medical record;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

§ 268 of the Criminal Code. Selection of fine

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant alleged that there was no room for leaving the victim alone without being able to prevent the fall. Thus, the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court, which were lawfully adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant, at the early stage, was set up a lele-day to treat the victim as a le-ray after the completion of a le-raying medical examination. The Defendant stated that the e-mail was set up in order to treat the le-frequency, and that the e-mail was not set off during the course of moving the other patient. In full view of the fact that ○○○○○○, Kim Jong-chul, working at the same hospital, did not e-maild the victim’s body before leaving the victim’s body, and that the victim was sufficiently able to be found to have been able to have suffered from the victim’s body due to the Defendant’s e-mail or the possibility of the victim’s e-mail’s e-mail.

Reasons for sentencing

The victim suffered bodily injury due to the negligence of the defendant. Although the defendant's negligence directly caused the death of the victim, it is not likely that the victim would have been a livered beginning due to the death of the victim, it seems that the victim would not reach an agreement with his/her bereaved family members, etc., and the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, etc. are considered in favorable circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and environment, etc., and all of the sentencing conditions specified in Article 51 of the Criminal Act as ordered.

Parts of innocence

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the facts charged by occupational negligence, which is the primary facts charged, constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime for the same reasons as the stated in the preceding 2.b., and thus, the judgment of innocence should be rendered under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of the injury caused by occupational negligence, which is the ancillary facts added in the trial, the judgment of