logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2014.12.10 2013노776
업무상과실치상
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of construction of windows, the Defendant specifically asked the construction businessman to ensure that windows do not even do so, and directly confirmed after the construction of safety devices.

Therefore, the Defendant fulfilled his duty of care to prevent accidents by making the width of windows narrow or installing and managing a fall prevention facility, etc., and there was no fact that the Defendant neglected the windows so that people can pass through by by themselves by blocking the windows.

Ultimately, the instant accident is only due to the negligence of the interior service provider who installed safety devices.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one million won by fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, even though the fault of the victim who opened and opened the window is far more than the fault of the defendant, since the defendant's negligence did not recognize the defendant's occupational negligence as long as the result of injury was caused by competition between the defendant and the negligence of the defendant (the defendant asserted that the accident in this case was based on the negligence of the installer, however, although the defendant asserted that the accident in this case was based on the negligence of the installer of the hospital, as the operator of the hospital changed the purpose of use and failed to perform his duty to verify whether the windows of the program room used by the patient was safe and to install safety facilities

① The Defendant, the head of the hospital, “E hospital” (hereinafter “E hospital”), is a mental hospital in which patients suffering emotionally unstable, and is likely to have attempted to escape or commit suicide through their windows. As such, the Defendant, the head of the hospital, at least, is able to open the windows of a place used by the patients.

arrow