logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.10.21 2015고단1052
중과실치상
Text

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for ten months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of a multi-household house with a approximately 8m height in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (half underground floor and second floor) with a height of 8m, who resides in the second floor of the above house.

The above multi-household house has a fixed-type steel stairs leading to the above roof in the 2nd floor bend floor of the house in which the defendant is living. On the edge of the above roof, approximately 16 cms are installed, and there is no substantial height railing or safety facilities corresponding thereto that can prevent human fall.

In such cases, in consideration of the possibility of access to the above roof of a person, such as where the above steel stairs are installed, the defendant has a duty of care to prevent access to the above roof, except in extenuating circumstances such as construction, and to take corrective measures against the above roof such as prohibition of access by the person, such as prohibition of access to the above roof.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was aware of the fact that he was frequently on the second floor of the above house with the victim E (Nam, 12 years of age) of pro-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job-friendly job. However, the Defendant

In addition, at around 16:00 on December 25, 2012, the Defendant was aware of the fact that he was playing on the second floor of the above house with pro-friendly job offering F (ma, 12 years of age), victim E (ma, 12 years of age), and was living on the second floor of the above house, but did not take such measures as above, and did not significantly neglect the above duty of care, such as not making considerable attention to prevent them from having access to the roof.

Ultimately, the Defendant is above.

arrow