The judgment below

The remainder, other than the dismissed part of the application for compensation, shall be reversed.

Defendant 6 months’ imprisonment without prison labor.

1. The lower court rejected the application for compensation by the applicant for compensation, and pursuant to Article 32(4) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, the applicant for compensation did not file an objection against the judgment dismissing the application for compensation. Therefore, the part rejecting the said application for compensation was immediately determined.

I would like to say.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the dismissal of the above application for compensation is excluded from the scope of adjudication of this court.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant operated a restaurant with the trade name of “E” (hereinafter “E”), and female toilets passed through the kitchen, and fulfilled the duty of care necessary to manage the main floor so as to prevent water from spreading on the main floor by installing separate stairs leading to the toilet. Thus, as in the instant case, the Defendant was unable to anticipate the risk of the victim being able to receive pictures because the toilets under the influence of alcohol go beyond the main floor and go beyond the main floor, and thus, the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged of the instant charges, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six months’ imprisonment without prison labor) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the following circumstances revealed by writing the CCTV video recording materials, the CD images, the investigation report (including a restaurant, etc.), or images, etc., the Defendant’s charge of this case is sufficiently recognized, since the Defendant neglected his/her duty to take necessary measures for the safety of female visitors who want to use the restaurant toilets of this case, and thereby caused the victim to suffer video, etc. of 3 percent of his/her her mack and bridge by negligence, even though he/she neglected his/her duty to take necessary measures for the safety of female visitors.