2017Do2312 Injury by occupational negligence

1. B

2. C

Defendants

Attorney K K (Korean National Assembly for Defendant B)

Law Firm AG, Attorneys AL, AH, and AM (Defendant C)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2016Do4550 Decided January 25, 2017

April 26, 2017

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

According to the records, Defendant B appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance and asserted only unfair sentencing as the grounds for appeal. In such a case, the allegation that the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to occupational duty of care is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

In addition, the argument that the lower court’s determination of sentencing erred by misapprehending the legal principles constitutes an allegation of unfair sentencing. However, under Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, the argument that the sentencing of Defendant B is unfair is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to Defendant C’s ground of appeal

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court was justifiable to have found Defendant C guilty of the facts charged in this case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the breach of duty of care in the occupational injury

3. Conclusion

All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-hyung

Justices Park Byung-hee

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kim Jong-il