logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.06.21 2019고정678
업무상과실치상
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the operator of Dpet hotel in the first floor underground of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building.

The Defendant, at the above hotel, has protected 1 mamerasian organic dog in a height of about 84 cm, together with other mamerasians.

The above abandoned dog was able to commit an act of harming or attacking a person by sensitively responding to the person, and the length of 80cm in writing is the length of 80cm. Since the defendant was well aware of such circumstances, the defendant, who is the operator of a pet dog, had a duty of care to protect the above abandoned dog separately, to protect the defendant, such as a dog, a dog, a pent, a pent, etc., or a pent, to further enhance the pent, or to actively restrain the above abandoned dog from doing any behavior, etc.

Nevertheless, on March 21, 2018, the Defendant neglected the above duty of care and did not take any measures to notify the victim E (or 71 years of age) who visited the said dog of the attack of the said dog verbally and did not take any measures other than informing the attack of the said dog of the attack, and the victim was released from the above abandoned dog to the pentice.

이로써 피고인은 업무상의 과실로 피해자로 하여금 약 5주간의 치료가 필요한 “우 제3수지 으깸 손상” 등의 상해를 입게 하였다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some statements concerning the suspect examination protocol of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes for investigation reporting;

1. Article 268 of the Criminal Act and Article 268 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

1. The summary of the argument is the possibility of attacking the victim’s organic dog (hereinafter “instant organic dog”) as indicated in advance, and the victim’s losses above the pents.

arrow