beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. (1) When misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles are sold, Defendant (1) shall provide flags to the Gu.
The defendant cannot be deemed to have a duty of care to provide it to the gambling place, and the defendant fulfilled his duty of care as a restaurant operator.
(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (one year of imprisonment without prison labor for four months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.
B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. Negligence in a judgment of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles on the defendant's assertion that negligence constitutes an element of a crime due to neglect of normal attention (Article 14 of the Criminal Act). In other words, it refers to a violation of the duty of care. The content of the duty of care consists of the duty to avoid the result, which is the duty to take all necessary measures to avoid occurrence of the constituent consequence, in a case where the actor is aware of the risk of the legal interest and the risk, which should be recognized and determined by the prior care.
With respect to the judgment of the duty of care, while the level of common attention of the person engaged in the same duty of care is the standard, the special knowledge of the actor should be considered.
Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below by integrating the evidence legitimately adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the digging hole provided by the defendant, which frequently happens in the course of bending the digging by means of a eating sofacing sofacing sofacing. Accordingly, there is always a possibility that the digging facing may occur to customers. These circumstances are the fact that the illumination is more well known to the defendant who operates the restaurant, and in the course of bending the digging, the digging facing itself cannot be prevented, but the digging facing is less.