2015 Highly Injury by occupational negligence 2089

1. A;

2 B

3. C public corporation:

Charge (Lawsuit) and Kim Young-young (Trial) (Trial)

Attorney Lee In-hee (Korean national election for all of the defendants)

September 25, 2015

Defendants shall be punished by fine of KRW 3,00,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fines, the Defendants were converted into one day each of 100,000 won.

shall be confined in each old station.

Criminal History Office

Defendant A is a business operator in the swimming pool in the Daejeon** the Gu** the Dong** * the sports center who has overall control over the safety management, supervision and operation of swimming pools, safety management, safety management education, etc., as a business operator in the swimming pool. Defendant A and C, who are employed by Defendant A, is a business operator in charge of the safety management of swimming pools, safety management of swimming pools, and swimming education for members.

Defendant A was in a situation where it is difficult for safety management personnel to closely grasp the safety management status of the swimming pool as a whole and cope with accidents as at 25 meters in length, width, 15 meters in depth, and 1.5 meters in depth, and in particular, when the swimming pool begins, Defendant A was able to obtain the swimming pool at a deep place without the protection of his/her guardian, so he/she was unable to thoroughly see the safety situation of the swimming pool and prevent students from getting out of the swimming pool at a deep place without the protection of his/her guardian, and to thoroughly manage and supervise the safety situation at the site, and to prevent safety accidents at the time of leaving the swimming pool, and at the time of leaving the site, he/she did not directly take charge of safety safety management, such as the telephone room and the safe management of the entire swimming pool. In principle, Defendant A did not directly take charge of safety safety at the time of leaving the site, but did not take charge of safety safety management at the first five p.m. on the date of leaving the site.

In addition, Defendant B notified the Defendant of the location of safety work and the safety situation of the members acquired in the swimming pool sufficiently to prevent the students from entering a depth and thoroughly ascertaining the situation, and that at the time, he neglected his duty of care to prevent the students from entering the swimming pool in the first place prior to the commencement of the first swimming course of the students at the time, there is considerable risk that the elementary school students would have obtained the first swimming course at a deep time, and that the elementary school students would have obtained the deep depth of the depth, and that the Defendant, who is a safety worker, should be able to enter the swimming. Thus, Defendant B did not neglect his duty of care to prevent the students from taking the first swimming course at the time of his occupation, and did not neglect his duty of care to prevent the students from taking it into the place of the accident at the time of his occupation, and thus, Defendant B neglected his duty of care to prevent the victims from taking it into the place of the first swimming course at the time of his duty of care.

There was an occupational negligence that has escaped from the safety service position.

On April 5, 2015, at around 50:50, the Defendants suffered injury, such as the number of days of treatment for treatment, influence, boundary intelligence, etc., by getting the victim who was admitted to take lessons at a deep place once a swimming pool, when he/she became aware of his/her occupational negligence, and leaving the training course at a time when he/she was unable to do so.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly caused the injury to the victim due to the above occupational negligence.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The protocol of statement of the police officer against the office roof;

1. On-site reports on results of field identification;

1. Each written diagnosis;

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Code, and the choice of each fine

2. Detention in a workhouse;

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

Reasons for sentencing

The defendants recognize and reflect their mistakes, and the victim's life obstructs and living is a criminal negligence due to the small warrant situation, but basically, it is difficult for the defendants to seriously criticize the defendants, and the defendants expressed their intent to not be punished by agreement with the victim, and the defendant B and C have no criminal history prior to the instant case, and the degree of individual negligence of the defendants shall be determined as per the order, comprehensively taking into account the following: (a) the criminal negligence is due to the small warrant situation; (b) the defendants expressed their intent to not be punished by agreement with the victim; and (c) the defendant B and C have no criminal history prior to the instant case

Judges Kim Dong-dong