2012 Injury by gross negligence

GOO Kim (00000 - 000000) Other projects

Seoul Residence

Seoul basic domicile

Hanmun-gu leather (Lawsuits) (Public Trial) and inner case (Public Trial)

Attorney Cho In-bok (Korean Charter)

October 25, 2012

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment without prison labor for six months.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who has been managing and managing a dog, such as 'arter', 'mat', and 'mat' at his house located in Seoul 00- 00- - 00. In particular, 'arter' is a dog with strong tendency to unconditione the object, such as easily seeing a person other than the main owner, and causing a threat.

Since the above defendant's house was in a situation where tenants, such as young women, were residing in the narrow passage, and in such a case, the defendant has a duty of care to raise and manage the dog so that the above "Rour" is not likely to keep the residents of the above defendant's house from being able to open or reduce the dog at a place far away from the passage route.

Nevertheless, the Defendant was unable to set down the dogs managed by the Defendant, such as the above Rosterler, without putting them up on the right side of the house passage, and due to this, the Defendant did not take any measures despite the occurrence of an accident threatening or threatening the tenants, etc.

The Defendant, due to the above gross negligence on April 5, 201, after asking the victim's bridge in the size of 00 (Woo 29 years old), the victim, who is the victim of the plant in which the opening line was administered by the Defendant on April 5, 201, suffered approximately two weeks of medical treatment, and the Defendant 20 years of age as well as the victim 4 years of age and 4 years of age, who was under his management around April 8, 208, 'Jat 'Woo' managed by the Defendant on April 21, 200 to the victim 'Woo Lat Do, the Defendant managed by the Defendant around August 21, 200, 'Mat Ro-do, the Defendant managed the victim 'Mat 4 years of age and 'Mat 209 years of age and 'Woo 4 years of age' to the left side of the victim Kim Kim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of the witness Park 00, Kim 00, and the outline 00;

1. Some of the statements made by the prosecution against the accused in the examination protocol of suspect;

1. Statement of the police statement concerning gambling00;

1. Each statement of Kim 00, Kim 00

1. Each medical certificate, opinions, medical records, and medical records;

1. Each photograph;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the 112 Reporting Receipt Book;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 268 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

According to the Defendant’s awareness of the Sentencing in his or her house closed, if the Defendant did not thoroughly manage the openings thoroughly, he or she could cause a large accident at any time to the tenants residing together, and even though he or she received several complaints from the tenants who had been threatened with the passage, the tenants did not take any particular measures for safety even though there was an accident that the tenants did not open to the opening, as stated in its reasoning.

Due to the Defendant’s gross negligence, female tenants were repeatedly injured by fluor as stated in its reasoning, and among them, the degree of injury is very significant in the case of 00 and Ma Kim00 in the case of the victim’s fluor. In particular, in the case of the victim’s fluor Park 00, even after being given a long-term medical treatment, it is confirmed that the body still remains fluently in the part of the body, and that the mental damage suffered in the instant case still remains.

Although the defendant agreed with the victim Kim 00 through an insurance company, the insurance receipt has been made for the victim's gambling0, it is difficult to find out the defendant's attitude to think about the responsibility of the accident of this case and the damages suffered by the victims, in addition to the attitude to be resolved through the insurance.

In full view of the above various circumstances, it seems appropriate to impose punishment equivalent to that of the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant’s liability for the crime is not light and the nature and circumstances of the crime are not good. Considering the various sentencing factors expressed in this case, the punishment shall be determined as ordered in the same manner.

Judges Kang Dong-gu