logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.01.09 2013노1688
업무상과실치상
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor to the gist of the grounds for appeal, even though the defendant could have been negligent in performing his duty of care to prevent accidents by ascertaining in advance whether he did not have any passengers entering the platform, and thereby caused serious injury to the victim, the court below determined that the facts charged of this case were not proven, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to "duty of care" in the crime of injury by occupational negligence, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to "liability of care" in the crime

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is the C calendar and is a person who is engaged in the duty of safety management in history.

At around 16:05 on July 4, 2012, the Defendant was a station station located in Yangsan-si D, and at its platform in Seoul, the Defendant was obliged to guide the victim E, who was waiting for the Busan Mung-si Train 1211, to enter the platform, to get out of the yellow safe block, and to prevent the accident from falling off the train and the platform due to the reverse wind that occurred due to the speed of the train, and had a duty of care to rapidly stop the train and rescue the victim.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and failed to stop the train while the victim got into the safety block due to the failure to leave the C Station platform, and the victim left the train line, and the total of 5 meters from 7 to 2 meters from the train line (total of 120 meters) did not stop the train while the body of the victim is over.

As a result, the victim suffered serious bodily injury, such as damage to the voltage of the left side, damage to the pressure of the water on the right side, damage to the water pressure of the water tank, the discharge frame No. 5 in the eth century, the frame of both sides, and the left-hand aggregate.

B. The judgment of the court below is to find guilty of the facts charged in this case.

arrow