beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. It cannot be deemed that the defendant was negligent in the installation and management of the rail of this case, and even if there was a domestic negligence, there is no proximate causal relation between the accident of this case and the accident of this case.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (including six months of imprisonment without prison labor, one year of suspended execution, etc.) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was negligent in installing and managing the rail of this case, and that the accident of this case was caused thereby, if the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles was duly adopted and investigated.
1) The instant rail was connected only between timber, which is a rail material, and was not installed after being fixed to the steel pole. Thus, it is difficult to deem that the instant rail had ordinary safety as a rail for the purpose of preventing the fall of users. (2) Considering the number of persons who drink with the victim at the time of the instant occurrence, the number of discovered cattle bottles, etc., the victim did not have a stringr that the instant rail was damaged by being drunkly under the influence of alcohol.
3. Furthermore, the act of expectation of users of a building on a rail is an ordinary act. Even if the victim was expected to take a rail while drunk and the instant accident occurred due to the damage of the instant rail during that process, it cannot be deemed that the instant accident occurred due to the use of a non-commercial rail by the victim.
In other words, even in such a case, it is reasonable to view that the accident in this case occurred due to the defect in the construction of the rail of this case, which was poorly installed to the extent that the expectation of the rail is not sufficient to make a person's low-water
Therefore, the defendant's mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles.