The case holding that the safety personnel placed in the swimming pool are not guilty of a criminal negligence on the part of the swimming pool manager in relation to an accident in which the victim (the age of nine) was faced with his body in order not to be able to run against the baby in the end when the victim (the age of nine) was slicking out of the baby pool and had different knowledge about the end of the bar so that he was unable to run against the baby.

The Defendant, the manager of a swimming pool, placed safety personnel in a swimming pool so that they can not avoid safety accidents by placing safety personnel, and the safety personnel have to take care of the safety personnel so that they do not have access to safety accidents. If the victim (the age nine) was aware that he/she was getting out and getting out of the soft so that he/she was unable to take part in the edge of the soft so that he/she could not take part in his/her body and suffered injury by taking part in his/her soft so that he/she could not take part in his/her body when he/she did not come up with the end, then the safety personnel cannot be said to have a specific and direct duty of care in relation to the safety personnel’s failure to properly implement the duty of safety measures, in preparation for the failure of the Defendant to properly implement the duty of safety personnel to take part in the safety personnel’s instruction, install safety facilities to prevent any access by other people near the falling box, and sufficiently placed the safety personnel within the swimming so that they could not have access to the collision.

Article 268 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 91No1932 delivered on February 14, 1992

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu District Court Panel Division.

Defendant’s ground of appeal

The court below recognized the fact that the slicks installed in the swimming of this case had a short length and a slope, and that there is a need for the installation of proper risk signs or special surveillance of safety personnel in order to prevent people from approaching the water surface and molds, and supported the judgment of the court of first instance that recognized the liability for the crime of causing bodily harm by occupational negligence on the ground that the Defendant, who operates the swimming pool, was negligent in failing to comply with the safety personnel’s instructions, to install a slicks so that people can not use the slicks, or to install safety facilities so that people may not have access to the slicks in the vicinity of the falling slicks, and to prevent the collision by placing the safety personnel sufficiently within the swimming pool so that other people can not have access to the slick points.

According to the records, the soft mold of this case can be seen as a dangerous facility, and thus, the defendant is generally responsible for the management of the swimming pool, and is obligated to take safety measures therefor. However, according to the result of the verification by the court below, if the defendant uses the method of breaking the soft so that he can string by installing a sign, etc. on the edge of the soft mold, the safety personnel may be placed instead so as not to be able to avoid safety accidents. Accordingly, it can be seen that the co-defendant of the court of first instance failed to perform the duty of care of safety personnel and monitoring and guiding the son who is placed on the soft mold of the above so that the defendant could not be able to take necessary safety measures in preparation for the fact that the co-defendant of the first instance court's failure to perform the duty of care of safety personnel at the time of the accident, and thus, the defendant's failure to take such measures against the victim's body at the end of the accident can be found to be against the victim's left part of the safety device.

The judgment of the court below shall not be deemed to have committed an unlawful act that affected the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on duty of care and negligence in light of the duty of care and negligence. The grounds for the argument

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below.