2012 Highest 5449 Injury by occupational negligence

1. A (Name B before Change:

2. C

3. D;

Preliminary (prosecution) and public trial (public trial)

Law Firm E (private line for Defendant A)

Attorney F in charge, G

Attorney H (Korean for Defendant C)

Attorney I (National Assembly for Defendant D)

December 26, 2012

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months, by imprisonment without prison labor for eight months, by a fine of KRW 3,00,000, and by a fine of KRW 3,000.

When Defendant D fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for a period of 50,000 won converted into one day.

To order the defendant D to pay the amount equivalent to the above fine.

Criminal facts

Defendant A is a person operating K gymnasium on the fourth floor of the building located in Switzerland-siJ, Defendant C is a person operating the K gymnasium on the first floor of the building located in the Y-si L, Seocheon-si, and Defendant D is a person working for the K gymnasing trial. From around 2003, Defendant C, along with Defendant A and the head of other gymnasium such as Defendant A and Defendant D, etc., who was at ordinary friendship, promoted the gymnasium to increase the membership by promoting the gymnasium and develop the gymnasium in the form of a gymnasium. From around 2006, the members of each gymnasium opened a camera at the Internet site, advertiseded the gymnasium, posted related images, posted the gymnasium’s name, “the gymnasium,” and “the gymnasium”.

The Defendants decided to hold 2 minutes and 3 minutes and 2 minutes and 2 minutes and 3 months of the title “R” of the P Management’s P Management in Gyeyang-gu Incheon. Defendant A, the training period of which is more than 3 months, shall thoroughly check the players’ skill, body weight, health condition, etc. in advance to determine whether to participate, and whether the medical personnel and first aid equipment are sufficiently prepared to cope with an emergency situation, such as bowling and ambulances, and whether the medical personnel and first aid equipment are sufficiently prepared to protect players, and Defendant C shall check the health conditions of the players in advance, such as the safety of the players and equipment, according to the game experience and training period, etc., and shall be paid to the players, and the health of the players, etc. shall be carefully determined before the commencement of the training, and the health of the players shall be carefully determined before the commencement of the training.

In addition, Defendant C announced the aforementioned “N” camera to see the sports policy that obligated to wear the HE without a HE due to frequent injuries in order to increase the string time. Nevertheless, the Defendants neglected to do so on September 11, 2010, the period for the training of the walves is three months, and the victims, who are high school students of 17 years of age with the practical experience, were present at the 17th anniversary of the 2ndring time, without having to check the health condition in advance or to wear the halves, which are the head protective gear, or to attend the halves without having the victim attend the 2ndring time without having the victim attend the halves at the 2ndring time without having the victim attend the halves of the 18thring time without having the victim attend the halves at the 2nding site.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of U (referring to a victim), V (the first and the doctor of an operation), W (the director of the superior athletes) ; 1. Results of video examination by this Court (the results of July 23, 2012);

1. A protocol concerning examination of suspects of the prosecution concerning P (in charge of gymnasiums at the joint place);

1. When a statement is made by the Secretary General of X (YO) and the police officer in relation to T;

1. U's complaint book, diagnostic certificate, and patient records of the emergency medical center;

1. Investigation report (in the event of an investigation into the victim's counter-party player, investigation report (in the event of a visual phenomenon), prize photographs; 1. Investigation report (in the case of a video recording at the closure of a dynamic image), photographs, and game photographs;

1. Disability diagnosis statement, opinion statement, investigation report (case of the victim's status), surgical surgery record, outpatient surgery record, diagnosis statement, physical examination statement, emergency medical services statement, investigation report (report on the medical records of an authorized forest hospital and the contents of CT image attached), investigation report (report on the medical records of an authorized Switzerland Hospital and the contents of Zinetotype Hospital), investigation report (report on the medical records of an authorized Switzerland Hospital and the contents of the CT image attached), investigation report (report on physical examination response), investigation report (verification of the victim's condition), investigation report (report on the victim's condition), copy of the application for registration of the Y association, the certificate of passing of the present Y association, and the application for commencing the Y association professional

1. Investigation reports ( investigation as counter to the Y Association);

1. Investigation report (investigation matters concerning prosecutor's direction), N Internet camera posts ( dated May 26, 2009, December 17, 2008);

1. A copy of the investigation report (a relative investigation), investigation report (case of victim's transfer), and professional test of the Y Association;

1. Investigation report (as to attachment of NPO notices), N Internet page posts (as to August 30, 2010; as to September 2, 2010; as to September 3, 2010; as to September 4, 2010; as to September 4, 2010; as to September 10, 2010; as to September 13, 2010);

1. Investigation reports (Investigation into the Y Association), provisions of theY Association;

1. The business regulations of the Korean Baruncing Association;

1. Investigation report (to attach a document file confirmed on a seized hard disc) and a business plan;

1. Provisions of the International Opium;

Judgment on the Defendants’ motion of innocence

1. The assertion that he/she does not have any obligation to wear the he/shed;

[Summary of Innocence] The provisions for compulsory exploitation of the Hague of the Y Association or the Amateur Association are not applicable to friendship games or sprinking between shooting and sports groups (the defendant's common assertion) as in the instant case. Even if the provisions for compulsory exploitation of the HH are applied without exception, since the organizer (the defendant C) or the adjudication (the defendant D) is the person responsible for wearing the HH, the defendant A, who is merely the head of the sports center of the participant, does not violate his duty of care (the defendant A's assertion).

[Judgment]

그러나 앞서 본 증거들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 운동경기 단체에서 만든 규칙은 운동경기와 관련하여 준수하여야 할 일반적인 주의사항을 반영한 것이므로, 이를 위반한 행위는 객관적 주의의무 위반을 징표하는바, Y협회나 대한아마 추어복싱연맹이 주최하는 공식경기는 헤드기어 착용을 의무화하고 있는 점, ② 이 사건 'N'란 피고인 C이 2003. 7.경 기존의 킥복싱이나 무에타이, 격투기 등과 구별하기 위하여 명명한 입식타격 격투기로서 주먹, 발, 팔꿈치, 무릎 기술이 모두 허용되고, 여기에다가 던지기 기술까지 허용하여(증거기록 1권 147쪽 참조) 킥복싱이나 복싱 이상의 두부(頭部) 손상 위험성이 상존하는 점, 피고인 C은 위 N의 활성화, 대중화를 통하여 수익을 창출할 사업계획을 세우고, 인터넷카페에 N 경기 일정을 공지하여 참가자를 모집한 후, 참가비(2만 원)를 받고 N 경기를 지속적으로 개최한 점, ③ 피고인 C은 이 사건 2010. 9. 11.자 N 경기에 앞두고 2010. 9. 4. 인터넷카페에 공지게시물로써 'N 아마추어 공개 스파링이란 초보자가 승패 구분 없이 진행을 하고, 보호장비는 14온스 글러브 사용, 헤드기어 미착용, 정강이보호대, 몸통보호대 착용을 원칙, 룰은 2분 2라운드 30초 휴식을 원칙, 무릎으로 얼굴 가격 금지'를 사전 공지하였는데, 위 N 경기에 참가한 각 격투기체육관 선수들이 실력향상 등 목적으로 경기에서 승리하기 위하여 최선의 노력을 다할 것이고, 주먹과 발에 의한 머리 공격이 허용되는 이상 위 N 경기에서 선수들의 두부 손상 위험성은 상존하는 점, 헤드기어는 킥복싱, 복싱, 태권도 등 격투 기경기에서의 두부 손상을 방지하기 위한 것인데, 공식경기가 아니라거나 설사 격투기 체육관 간의 친선경기 또는 스파링(대련)에 불과하다고 하여 두부 손상 위험성이 없지 아니한 점, ④ 이 법원의 영상증거조사결과, 실제로 피해자 S은 이 사건 N 경기의 1라 운드에서 상대선수의 오른발 하이킥을 왼쪽 머리 부분에 강하게 맞아 다운 당하였고, 2라운드에서 상대선수의 주먹 공격을 머리 부분에 수회 맞은 점, 피해자 S의 뇌 경막하 출혈 등 상해는 이와 같은 외부 충격에 의하여 발생하였을 것으로 넉넉히 추단되는 점, ⑤ 피고인 C은 위 N 경기를 개최한 주최자로서 격투기경기에서 발생할 수 있는 선수들의 부상을 예상할 수 있고, 이를 방지하기 위하여 제도적, 인적, 시설적 환경을 마련하고 응급상황이 발생할 경우에는 신속하고 적절한 대응조치를 취해야 할 객관적인 주의의무가 있음에도, 킥복싱을 배운지 3개월이 되었을 뿐 전적(戰績)이 전무한 피해자 S이 참가하는 N 경기조차 헤드착용 미착용을 주도하여 결정하고, 비용문제(약 30만 원 소요) 등을 이유로 응급의료진을 대기시키지 아니한 점, 피고인 D은 각종 격투기 유단자로서 C의 부탁을 받고 위 N 경기의 심판을 보게 된 자로서 격투기경기의 심판은 주로 선수들이 경기규칙을 준수하도록 하여 공정한 경기가 되도록 하고, 점수 부여, 경고 또는 패널티 부과, 경기 중단, 승패 판단 등으로 경기를 진행하는 역할을 함과 아울러 선수들의 안전을 위하여 경기 전에 선수의 적합한 보호장비 착용 여부를 점검하는 등 격투기 경기를 함에 있어 예상할 수 있는 위험을 제거하는 역할도 부수적으로 수행하여야 할 객관적인 주의의무가 있음에도, C의 헤드기어 미착용 결정을 제지하거나 선수들에게 헤드기어 착용을 조언하지 아니한 점(피고인 D이 C의 부탁을 받고 무급으로 호의로써 심판을 보게 되었고, N 경기의 주최자인 C의 헤드기어 미작용 결정을 거부하기 어려웠다고 하더라도, 이러한 사정만으로 격투기경기 심판으로서의 안전조치의무를 부정할 수 없고, 다만 양형참작사유로서 고려할 수 있을 뿐이다), 피고인A은 피해자 S의 소속 체육관 관장으로서 수련생들이 격투기경기에서 불의의 부상을 당하지 않도록 최선의 안전조치를 취하여야 할 의무가 있음에도, C의 헤드기어 미착용 결정을 제지하거나 피해자 S에게 헤드기어 착용을 조언하지 아니한 점, ⑥ 더욱이 피해자 S은 아직 미성년자이고 이 사건 사고 발생 당시 피고인 AO로부터 킥복싱을 배운지 3개월이 되었을 뿐 전적(戰績)이 전무하여 격투기경기의 두부 손상 위험성에 대하여 정확한 지식과 판단능력이 부족하다는 점에서 피고인들에게 더욱 높은 수준의 안전조치의무가 요구되는 점 등을 종합하여 볼 때, 피고인들에게 객관적 주의의무 위반의 점이 없다는 피고인들의 위 주장은 받아들일 수 없다.

2. The assertion that there is no causal relationship between the hedthroid Hedroid and the brain mic hedrosis;

[무죄주장의 요지] 피해자 S은 모야모야병 등 이상(異常) 혈관 질환을 앓고 있었고, 피해자가 헤드기어를 착용하였다면 뇌 경막하 출혈이 발생하지 아니하였을 것이라는 부분이 입증되지 않았다. 그리고 헤드기어 미착용 상태로 N 경기를 진행한 것은 오히려 헤드기어 착용이 선수의 시야를 가리는 부작용이 있기 떄문이고, 그 대산에 충격흡수가 탁월한 14온스 글러브와 정강이 보호대 등을 착용하게 하여 사전 안전조치를 다하였다. 따라서 이 사건 헤드기어 미착용과 피해자의 뇌 경막하 출혈 등 상해 사이에 상당인과관계가 인정되지 않는다.

[ judgment] First, comprehensively taking account of the witness V’s legal statement, each written diagnosis, physical examination reply, investigation report (report on the Z currency content of the Chuncheon Sincheon University Hospital Hospital), investigation report (S submission of data), and the results of the game video examination by this court, it can be acknowledged that the victim had no scopic symptoms of the scopic disease above the scopic disease of the victim prior to the accident in this case, and it is reasonable to view that the victim’s injury, such as the victim’s scopic scopic scopic scopic scoppy and the scopic price of T, the counterpart player among the N games on September 11, 201

Next, in light of the legal principles as to co-principals in the crime of negligence, the Defendants did not err in making decisions on the risk of two harm in light of the victim Satise competition, or in light of the fact that the head attack by drinking, burning, etc. of the counter player is presumed to exist inevitably. In light of the importance of the two damaged preventive measures, the necessity of emergency treatment in the event of an accident, and the duty of safety protection of players common to the host of the competition, the referees, the referees, and the head of the Mate sport, etc. in the event of a shooting match, the Defendants did not have any significant reason to avoid any negligence, such as negligence on the part of the victim Satise and the victim Satise’s game experience and training period, or on the part of the victim Satise, the Defendants did not have any specific reason to prevent the above Defendants from being negligent in failing to exercise their duty of care at all at the stage of the emergency medical treatment, even if the Defendants did not have any other reason to prevent the above injury.

3. Claims such as consent of the victim;

If T and W, who is the director of the sports center, are excluded from elements of a crime or illegality due to the consent of the victim, conduct due to work, permitted risk doctrine, risk acceptance theory, etc., the elements of a crime or illegality should also be avoided for the defendants involved.

[ judgment] According to the evidence records, Defendant C, the sports center leader of the above NN Games, and Defendant A, the victim S and his parents, did not receive a request for participation from the organizer or its employees to hold a civil or criminal liability for an injury, death, etc. that occurred during NN Games as of September 11, 2010. The victim S still is a minor, and the victim S still has been a minor three months after the accident of this case occurred at the time of the accident of this case, and there was a lack of accurate knowledge and ability to determine the two risks of damage of the MN match due to the transfer of the war. Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, the victim S participated in the above NN game alone does not constitute the elements of a crime by the theory, such as the victim’s consent to the injury, death, etc., which occurred during the game, or the defendant’s assertion that illegality does not constitute the elements of a crime by virtue of the victim’s consent, etc., or that it is not subject to prosecution by the court.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act: Defendant A and C: Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment without prison labor): Articles 268 and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant D: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant D: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Grounds for sentencing

Defendant C and A did not enter into an insurance for sports safety in preparation for any unexpected event, such as injury, death, etc. that may occur during the above N Games (the defendant C did not unfairly refuse to subscribe to the ‘AA Federation' established by the defendant and did not receive insurance benefits. However, as long as it is found that the defendant can separately subscribe to the insurance for the sports safety foundation at the same level (see No. 50 of the evidence list), the above circumstances are not the main reason for sentencing. As the defendants denied their respective responsibilities, the victim's medical treatment expenses, etc. (as of September 2012, 2000 won or more at the expense of the hospital, the defendant was not sentenced to a fine of 50,000 won or more at the expense of the court, and the defendant was not sentenced to a fine of 10,000 won or more at the expense of care, and the defendant C was unable to be considered to have been sentenced to a fine of 10,000 won or more at the expense of the court, and it was difficult to view that the defendant C&D's operation of the above circumstances.

Degree of judge