logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.04.15 2015도15227
실화
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Even though a person who is legally obligated to act to prevent infringement of legal interests prohibited by the Criminal Act can easily prevent the occurrence of a result by performing his/her duty, if it is possible for him/her to recognize and neglect the occurrence of a result and to evaluate his/her failure to act as an act of crime, he/she may be punished as an omission.

Here, the duty to act is recognized as well as the cases arising from statutes, legal acts, and preceding acts, and also cases where the duty to act is expected to be done under the good faith principle, social rules, or cooking (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9354, Feb. 28, 2008, etc.). The lower court, as an employee who managed the store in this case, has the duty to immediately remove the store to the extent possible if the danger to the above store arises. The lower court, as an employee who was in charge of the store in this case, has a duty to immediately remove the store to the extent possible, and the Defendant’s work hours and rest hours are not clearly distinguishable from the working hours of the store in the form of the Defendant’s work, as well as the Plaintiff was in charge of cleaning, etc. with A while smoking tobacco at the side of the store in this case where the Defendant was mainly in charge of management such as cleaning, etc., which was easily removed from A’s completely removed tobacco but entered into the store. Thus, the Defendant did not perform his duty to act under the contract or cooking, etc.

The decision was determined.

Considering the contents of the Defendant’s labor contract, the time and place where the instant fire occurred, the Defendant’s ordinary duty, the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the fire, and the facilitation of the act to prevent infringement of legal interests, etc., the lower court, under the good faith principle, left a cigarette butts as an obligation under the labor contract at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire.

arrow