The defendant shall be innocent.

The Defendant in the facts charged of the instant case is a person who operates a cosmetic in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu.

On May 11, 2015, at the above D Beauty room, 2.2 times before putting the victim E cosmetic, he/she conducted chroding.

Before a beauty artist conducts dyeing, he/she shall question the victim's side effects and experience, or fye the earer's fyeing, check the side effects, check the side effects, check the possibility of side effects, and conduct dye coloring. Since the use of heat treatment equipment on the head after dye color is likely to cause contact skin infection such as dyeculty, etc., the Defendant engaged in beauty business has a duty of care to check the possibility of side effects caused by chyeing in advance, check the side effects or stop using the heat treatment equipment.

Nevertheless, it did not fulfill such duty of care as above and performed chroding twice against the victim.

As a result, the victim suffered bodily harm from 14-day infections of stimulious causes, stimulious diseases, stimulious causes, stimulious diseases, stimulious diseases, stimulious diseases, and stimulious infections of the stimuls.

Determination of the existence of negligence in the relevant legal doctrine ought to be based on the standard level of attention of ordinary persons engaged in the same business and duties, and the standard level of general beauty art environment and conditions as at the time of the accident, peculiarity of beauty art act, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do3711, Dec. 10, 1999, etc.). The facts acknowledged by the prosecutor’s evidence submitted by the prosecutor are as follows: (a) the Defendant employed E on May 4, 2015, and was engaged in sof as to receive only material costs upon the E’s request while having the customers do so, such as softening and chroding.

E on May 12, 2015, at around 06:59, the Defendant complained of “two feet” as a mobile phone from May 12, 2015, and at F Council members on May 13, 2015.